# Tu-95 vs B52: Which is best?



## gjs238 (May 27, 2010)

You choose the terms - which comes out on top?


----------



## ppopsie (May 27, 2010)

I like the both. Good examples of how taxpayer's (or people's) money are used.


----------



## Matt308 (May 27, 2010)

Tu-95 is beauty incarnate. But the BUFF wins hands down.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 27, 2010)

Buff hands down. The Tu-95 couldn't do the low level mission the B-52 has done and besides you could probably hear it coming!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2010)

I got to go with the Buff as well, for the same reasons that Joe has given.


----------



## skipperbob (May 27, 2010)

I have to go with the plane that is still operational and is almost as old as I am!


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 27, 2010)

Gotta go with the Buff as well.


----------



## Matt308 (May 28, 2010)

skipperbob said:


> I have to go with the plane that is still operational and is almost as old as I am!



Which would that be.. they are both ancient and still operational?


----------



## timshatz (May 28, 2010)

Buff has been more versitile and changed missions like a stripper changes outfits. But that's not to say the Bear wouldn't/couldn't do the same if the option was available. 

On top of that, the Bear is a much better looking bird. Not saying much, the B52 is one ugly airplane. 

On looks, it's the Bear. On creative uses of a bomber that was supposed to be tossing Slim Pickens out of the bomb bay and ended up doing a lot more, the Buff.


----------



## Messy1 (May 28, 2010)

Gotta go with B52 on this one.


----------



## parsifal (May 29, 2010)

I think overall the B-52, but one should not discard the Bear. At sea they were greatly feared back in the seventies, trained to attack enmasse with massed volleys of standoff cruise missiles, and fitted with credible recon and ECM suites. During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan they long range patrols overflying Pakistani airspace and a small contingent from Yemen (I think) caused us a great deal of concern


----------



## Messy1 (May 29, 2010)

Maybe this argument will only be settled for sure when one is retired, leaving the victor.


----------



## The Basket (May 29, 2010)

The Tu-95 is more versatile as it has been sold to other countries, a civilian airliner version was made and a dedicated sub hunter version....plus over the horizon radar targeting and was used in Sigint and Elint missions.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 29, 2010)

The Basket said:


> The Tu-95 is more versatile as it has been sold to other countries, a civilian airliner version was made and a dedicated sub hunter version....plus over the horizon radar targeting and was used in Sigint and Elint missions.



I would not say that the Tu-95 is more versatile, certainly not because it has been sold to other countries. Being sold to other countries has nothing to do with versatility of an aircraft. The B-52 was a better weapons platform and overall a better airframe in my opinion.


----------



## The Basket (May 29, 2010)

The Soviets got more from the Tu-95 than the Americans got from the B-52.

The Tu-95 and B-52 both had Boeing airframes!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 29, 2010)

The Basket said:


> The Soviets got more from the Tu-95 than the Americans got from the B-52.



In what way did the Russian get more from the Tu-95? A bomber is designed to drop bombs. I highly doubt the Tu-95 has dropped more bombs than the B-52.


----------



## The Basket (May 29, 2010)

Because they used the Tupelov design in different ways. Getting more out of the basic airframe.

Both was designed as nuclear bombers and neither was used for what it was designed for...nuclear war.


----------



## parsifal (May 29, 2010)

I think the question has to be looked at a bit more objectively than that. We will never know if the buff or the bear was a better nuclear bomber or not, but we can still make some conclusions on the relative merits of each type based on some basic categories for assessment. I would think the main areas to consider would be:

1) survivability
2) effectiveness
3) versatility
4) serviceability
5) cost

I dont have a good enough knowledge of both types to reach too many conclusions, but both types have good records in all these categories. Im gueessing but I would think the Bear is cheaper, but less serviceabile. I would say the buff is more survivable and more effective. It would be close, but I think the Bear might be more versatile/adaptable


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 29, 2010)

The Basket said:


> Because they used the Tupelov design in different ways. Getting more out of the basic airframe.



The US did not need to do that. The airframe of the B-52 easily could have been adapted to any of those things. 

I agree with Parsifal that it has to be looked at differently.


----------



## Messy1 (May 29, 2010)

I'd say the B-52 is fairly versatile. I believe it could carry any bomb in the US inventory.


----------



## Matt308 (May 29, 2010)

... and the BUFF was actually tested for maritime interdiction just as the Bear. And has been proposed over and over as a potential standoff jammer. And don't dismiss the long life associated as the mother-craft for flying test beds, experimental craft and airborne missile launches. The BUFF has proven to be quite a versatile asset.


----------



## timshatz (May 30, 2010)

Buff always reminded me of the UPS truck of the air. Carries everything you need about a cheaply as you can (overall life). About a good looking as a UPS truck too (sorry, keep busting on the looks but it is one ugly bird)


----------



## Waynos (May 30, 2010)

Messy1 said:


> Maybe this argument will only be settled for sure when one is retired, leaving the victor.



Nah, the Victor was retired years ago 

Gotta love the continual evolution that Tupolev used on the B-29 to eventually end up with the Bear, but the B-52 is the winner for me.


----------



## Gnomey (May 30, 2010)

B-52 is the clear winner for me. Both are excellent aircraft though and I suspect that both still have a long service life ahead of them. I think I read that the Buff is due to be in service until around 2040, wouldn't surprise me if the Tu-95 would be around for a similar length of time if not longer.


----------



## Matt308 (May 31, 2010)

Okay so now having touted the BUFF as the winner, I do have to admit that the propulsion units on the Bear were ground breaking phenoms. The A400M surely has learned some lessons from these NK-12 constant speed turbo-props.

Kuznetsov NK-12 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh... did I mention that this is perhaps the MOST beautiful bomber ever made?  And check out this civil version using the same engines with a 620mi average of 541mph. I give you the prop driven Tu-114. Now that's impressive.


----------



## Waynos (May 31, 2010)

Surprising to see the JAL titling on the fuselage! I never knew they had any kind of interest in the type. This was the world biggest Airliner until the 747 appeared. There was a Lockheed concept for a similar airliner in the mid 1970's, referred to generically as the Recat project (Reduced Energy Commercial Air Transport) which used a Tristar fuselage and four wing mounted propfans.

Matt, maybe if the A400M had learned something from Kuznetsov the engines may not have given so much trouble! 

edit; just noticed how the caption on the photo seems to eerily foresee its use in this thread! lol


----------



## The Basket (May 31, 2010)

The civilian version Tu-114 is a real deal.

Immense. The JAL thing was just a tie in for Japanese routes from the Ussr. The Japanese never bought of flew them. 

If one based on sheer crazy technology and jaw dropping performance then the Bear wins.

500mph prop driven Lunacy.

By the by...the first Soviet Awacs Tu-126...was based on the Tu-114....so even more airframe uses from the versatile design.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 1, 2010)

I will admit the Tu-95 is a very beautiful aircraft.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 1, 2010)

You would think with those long spindly landing gear, that the nose wheel would dangerous shimmy. I bet that was a problem in initial development.


----------



## timshatz (Jun 1, 2010)

Say what you will about the Soviets/Russians, they do build them pretty.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 1, 2010)

Well certainly that one at any rate!


----------



## rousseau (Jun 2, 2010)

There is no doubt I have to choose B-52, but Tu-95 seem to be more lively


----------



## Jerry W. Loper (Mar 31, 2011)

How many bombs has the Tu-95 dropped in anger? The B-52, of course, has dropped thousands in anger.


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 31, 2011)

Then I suppose one could argue that the Tu-95 was the more successful aircraft 
(Jedi mind trick)


----------



## davebender (Aug 5, 2011)

I don't agree with that criteria. What counts is how many bombs were placed on target.

What sort of weapons delivery accuracy can these two bombers achieve?


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 6, 2011)

davebender said:


> I don't agree with that criteria. What counts is how many bombs were placed on target.
> 
> What sort of weapons delivery accuracy can these two bombers achieve?



In what year?

Over the decades these aircraft have been in service they have both been through several generations of avionics. Capabilities of either one have changed dramatically over the years without even comparing one to the other.


----------



## davebender (Aug 7, 2011)

Per Wikipedia...
B-52 entered service during 1955. 
Tu-95 entered service during 1956.

Let's pick 1960 to compare bomber accuracy.
Both aircraft models have 4 to 5 years to fix design glitches. We will be dropping unguided weapons. That way we are comparing bomber capability rather then guided weapon capability.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 8, 2011)

Perhaps before that we should post the actual performance figures. i am no expert i either aircraft, so i simply post the relevant extracts from wiki as a starting point

Specifications (Tu-95MS) 

General characteristics

Crew: 6–7
Length: 46.2 m[24] (151 ft 6 in[24])
Wingspan: 50.10 m[24] (164 ft 5 in[24])
Height: 12.12 m (39 ft 9 in)
Wing area: 310 m² (3,330 ft²)
Empty weight: 90,000 kg (198,000 lb)
Loaded weight: 171,000 kg (376,200 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 188,000 kg (414,500 lb)
Powerplant: 4 × Kuznetsov NK-12M turboprops, 11,000 kW (14,800 shp) each
Performance

Maximum speed: 920 km/h (510 knots, 575 mph)
Range: 15,000 km (8,100 nmi, 9,400 mi) unrefueled
Service ceiling: 13,716 m (45,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 10 m/s (2,000 ft/min)
Wing loading: 606 kg/m² (124 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 235 W/kg (0.143 hp/lb)
Armament


Radar-controlled Guns: 1 or 2 × 23 mm AM-23 autocannon in tail turret.
Missiles: Up to 15,000 kg (33,000 lb), including the Raduga Kh-20, Kh-22, Kh-26, and Kh-55 air-to-surface missiles.


B-52 H General characteristics

Crew: 5 (pilot, copilot, radar navigator (bombardier), navigator, and Electronic Warfare Officer)
Length: 159 ft 4 in (48.5 m)
Wingspan: 185 ft 0 in (56.4 m)
Height: 40 ft 8 in (12.4 m)
Wing area: 4,000 sq ft (370 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 63A219.3 mod root, NACA 65A209.5 tip
Empty weight: 185,000 lb (83,250 kg)
Loaded weight: 265,000 lb (120,000 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 488,000 lb (220,000 kg)
Powerplant: 8 × Pratt Whitney TF33-P-3/103 turbofans, 17,000 lbf (76 kN) each
Fuel capacity: 47,975 U.S. gal (39,948 imp gal; 181,610 L)
Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0119 (estimated)
Drag area: 47.60 sq ft (4.42 m²)
Aspect ratio: 8.56
Performance

Maximum speed: 560 kt (650 mph, 1,047 km/h)
Combat radius: 4,480 mi (3,890 NM, 7,210 km)
Ferry range: 10,145 mi (8,764 nm, 16,232 km)
Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,000 m)
Rate of climb: 6,270 ft/min (31.85 m/s)
Wing loading: 120 lb/ft² (586 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.31
Lift-to-drag ratio: 21.5 (estimated)
Armament


Guns: 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61 Vulcan cannon originally mounted in a remote controlled tail turret on the H-model, removed from all current operational aircraft in 1991
Bombs: Approximately 70,000 pounds (31,500 kg) mixed ordnance; bombs, mines, missiles, in various configurations
Avionics


Electro-optical viewing system that uses platinum silicide forward-looking infrared and high resolution low-light-level television sensors
Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod[206]
IBM AP-101 computer[72]


On the basis of the above figures, the B-52 has a slight speed advantage , service ceiling. it has a cimb rate 3 times better than the russian aircraft and carries over twice the bombload. 

The Soviet aircraft has a much greater range, and this seems to have been exploited in its adaptation to maritime strike and recon roles.

Hard to know which aircraft has the better avionics fit. I think both aircraft are unable to operate in environments where enemy fighters are present....they both are highly vulnerable. this includes vulnerability to Surface to air rockets. 

Back in the 70s, Bears were present in the Indian Ocean. When the russian invaded Afghanistan, they used their bears, based in Aden, to try and deter Allied naval incursions into the Arabian Sea. at that time AFAIK, the HMAS melbourne was the only carrier present in that area, escorted by two AAW ships, and 3 or 4 other escorts. Bears would fly in groups of 10 or so, with theoir long range stand off weaponary (despite being pretty innaccurate) the only defense we had were the 8 A-4s were had on board. Our A-4s at that time were not configured as bombers....they were mainly used as sir defnce aircraft, but they had a hard time achieving interceptions early enough to prevent launches of the soviet stand off weaponary. We expected them to fire these things in salvoes, because most of them would miss. However, every time we achieved an interception they would always turn away. they knew we were fair din*kum, and if they entered the fleet protection zone (cant remember, but i think it was 320km) we would shoot them down. It was a time the world came close to an actual shooting war, and we didnt know it.....

I have a healthy respect for the Tu-95


----------



## davebender (Aug 8, 2011)

Timing is everything and IMO both bombers were unlucky in that regard. They entered service during the mid 1950s, just a few years before the introduction of effective guided missiles. Weapons such as the American made AIM-9 (Sidewinder) rendered heavy bomber defensive weapons useless. 1960s era fighter aircraft could attack these bombers while remaining outside the effective range of bomber tail gun(s).


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 8, 2011)

In 2 instances B52 tail gunners shot down Mig 21's , over North Vietnam. In both cases it was the earlier model B52 with the quad .50 cal tail turret, not the later model with the Vulcan 20mm. The Mig21 could be armed with the Atoll missile, a Sidewinder copy. Why the Migs got close enough for a .50 cal to get them is unknown.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 8, 2011)

I don't believe the early AAM missles were all that effective, IIRC it wasn't til the later model sidewinders maybe the L model that they were able to discriminate the sun


----------



## davebender (Aug 8, 2011)

Most Vietnam era accounts I have read suggest U.S. heat seeking missiles were effective during the 1960s. Radar homing missiles still had a lot of problems.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 8, 2011)

The earlier versions of the AIM sidewinderhad about a 25% chance of a hit. I think from the "D" or the "E" series this impproved to about 40-60%. AIM9L all aspect missiles in the 80's achieved kill ratios above 80%

RAN Skyhawks were initially fitted with AIM9B, but later upgraded to AIM9D or E, from memory. These were not all aspect, but they were still pretty reliable. The Russian AA-2 were a straght reverse engineered copy of the AIM9B, and remained in service for a long time


----------



## davebender (Aug 9, 2011)

For the average pilot that's a lot better then your chances of hitting a moving aircraft with a 20mm cannon.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 9, 2011)

well, i'll put it out ther and watch it get shot to pieces. I think the B-52 was a better choice for attacking land targets. I think by reason of its range and the sheer weight of numbers, the Tu-95 was a better maritime strike aircraft

I guess the difference is in potential.....the Buff could have been a very potent maritime strike aircraft, so had the potential to eclipse the Buff in most areas.....the bear could not do the same in reverse.

Just an initial thought to kick the ball off.........


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 16, 2011)

Were the inboard underwing pylons wet? I'm thinking not.


----------



## Altea (Aug 23, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Buff hands down. The Tu-95 couldn't do the low level mission the B-52 has done and besides you could probably hear it coming!


 
And why do you think that Tu-95 is unable to perform low-level missions?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 25, 2011)

Altea said:


> And why do you think that Tu-95 is unable to perform low-level missions?


1. Its LOUD - you can actually hear it from miles away
2. Huge radar signature
3. I question the structural integrity of the airframe at continued low level operations at high speeds. I do know that some of the current fleet had to undergo mods for airframe fatigue flying at their current mission profile, so I could only imagine how much worse it would be if the aircraft was deployed at low level. 
4. Limited payload
5. Fuel consumption - Turbo Props are not efficent at high speeds at low level


----------



## Wingspanner (Aug 27, 2011)

Hmmm - lots of people seem to spend their time on these forums issuing opinion as though it was fact, which is a bit of a weird one, but hey ho.

Just a few points to make on this one.

Personally I don;t believe either is best, Yeah, I know, it gets said in every 'which was best' debate, but it gets a bit tiresome, as both these airframes have proven superlative. Who could possibly imagined that both are likely to be in service for ANOTHER 20+ years! Not since the age of sail has a piece of technology remained a viable weapon of war for such a long period. For this to have happened at such a time of technological advance as ours makes their longevity all the more remarkable. I heard an interview once where a pilot of a B52 said that there really was the possibility of some of the airframes being used *75 years* after the date of their manufacture! Incredible, isn't it?

Now, to get to the picky bits:

A couple of people have claimed that the B52 is more 'versitile' [sic] - but then failed to say why they thought that. I quick study of both aircraft reveals that it simply isn't true, is it? In addition to being used as a bomber, the Tu-95 has been used for reconnaissance, maritime patrol, AEW and ELINT. It even had a civilian passenger carrying version - the Tu 144 (can you imagine how noisy it must have been on a long flight in that beast?!) Anyway, excellent airframe that the buff is, its simply hasn't been used in such a wide variety of roles as its counterpart.

Flyboy - a 'huge' radar sig for the Bear doesn't seem a particularly relevant comparative issue, does it? No one is going to describe a B52 as stealthy are they?!! Given that its own sig was renowned as one of the largest of any western combat aircraft, saying that the Bears sig is _even bigger_ seems a little redundant. If you were comparing either to something contemporary to either like the Vulcan, maybe I'd see the point, but tbh, it just seems like semantics rather than a practical demonstration of any operational superiority to me... (?) Both were like flying radar reflectors! When both aircraft were forced to operate at low level, it was because of the evolution of SAM capability - operating at low level was a means of getting around that. Again, in that environment, having a comparatively larger radar sig was less important than the capability to operate low and with reasonable safety (and speed - which neither have low down!)

Your point 3 - surely this applies to both? The Bear was built like a proverbial brick $hi£ehouse. The B52 may have been built with a little more technical finesse - but it only operated at low level at huge cost in terms of accelerated fatigue, with huge investment into re-sparing the wings and with a hugely limited performance envelope. The thing was such an almighty target, that a lot of B52 crew, gung-ho patriotism for propaganda aside, felt that their chances of getting to the target at low level, let alone returning were vanishingly small. No fault of the airframe, just of the evolution of tech at the time and the forced change of tactics onto an inherently unsuited airframe. That said, it hardly makes in a de facto 'better' aircraft - especially when those of us living in Northern Europe have seem Bears operating at low level for the last 40 years in a maritime role. They seem to have been coping with that perfectly well (including the extra problems of corrosive salty water) - and I'll warrant, without the huge amount of $$$s thrown at continual maintenance and rebuild which the B52s have enjoyed.

So - I'm not going to argue which is best, as (as usual!) it entirely depends upon the criteria by which you want to judge 'best'. I'm simply going to state that I like the Tu-95 most because I think its a far more interesting and innovative design solution. 

Cheers.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 27, 2011)

Wingspanner said:


> Flyboy - a 'huge' radar sig for the Bear doesn't seem a particularly relevant comparative issue, does it? No one is going to describe a B52 as stealthy are they?!! Given that its own sig was renowned as one of the largest of any western combat aircraft, saying that the Bears sig is _even bigger_ seems a little redundant. If you were comparing either to something contemporary to either like the Vulcan, maybe I'd see the point, but tbh, it just seems like semantics rather than a practical demonstration of any operational superiority to me... (?) Both were like flying radar reflectors! When both aircraft were forced to operate at low level, it was because of the evolution of SAM capability - operating at low level was a means of getting around that. Again, in that environment, having a comparatively larger radar sig was less important than the capability to operate low and with reasonable safety (and speed - which neither have low down!)



Just for your edification, when the B-52 took on the low level there were mods done to the airframe that cut down its radar signature, still a pretty big picture but less than what a TU-95 will paint, and no RCS mods will ever cut down what those propellers will throw out!



Wingspanner said:


> Your point 3 - surely this applies to both? The Bear was built like a proverbial brick $hi£ehouse. The B52 may have been built with a little more technical finesse - but it only operated at low level at huge cost in terms of accelerated fatigue, with huge investment into re-sparing the wings and with a hugely limited performance envelope. The thing was such an almighty target, that a lot of B52 crew, gung-ho patriotism for propaganda aside, felt that their chances of getting to the target at low level, let alone returning were vanishingly small. No fault of the airframe, just of the evolution of tech at the time and the forced change of tactics onto an inherently unsuited airframe. That said, it hardly makes in a de facto 'better' aircraft - especially when those of us living in Northern Europe have seem Bears operating at low level for the last 40 years in a maritime role. They seem to have been coping with that perfectly well (including the extra problems of corrosive salty water) - and I'll warrant, without the huge amount of $$$s thrown at continual maintenance and rebuild which the B52s have enjoyed.


 Both aircraft were heavilied modified to complete their mid-life mission changes. The TU-95 had to have airframe mods operating under normal mission profiles because of the turbo props shaking the airfram apart. The B-52 had the luxury of a more resilient airframe that enabled it to withstand stresses when placed into the low level mission. I personally saw B-52s undergoing PDMs at Tinker AFB and it continues to withstand the test of time in a more agressive role than the TU-95.


Wingspanner said:


> So - I'm not going to argue which is best, as (as usual!) it entirely depends upon the criteria by which you want to judge 'best'. I'm simply going to state that I like the Tu-95 most because I think its a far more interesting and innovative design solution.



The only thing innovative of the TU-95 was the use of turbo props to cope with short comings of range and efficiency that plagued other Soviet heavies of the same era. Airframe systems wise it was barley a generation a head of the B-29 which most of it was copied from. It morphed into another role in which it excelled, but as far as placing ordanance on a given target the B-52 has it hands down, especially if we're talking what both aircraft's original role was - a heavy bomber!


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 28, 2011)

Wingspanner said:


> I quick study of both aircraft reveals that it simply isn't true, is it? In addition to being used as a bomber, the Tu-95 has been used for reconnaissance, maritime patrol, AEW and ELINT. It even had a civilian passenger carrying version - the Tu 144



The B-52 also was built into several different reconnaissiance versions as well. I do not believe the Tu-95 ever had an AEW version, perhaps you are referring to the Tu-126 which was a variation of the Tu-114. The Tu-144 was actually the Soviet's "Concord" but I assume you meant the Tu-114. The Tu-114 used the Tu-95's wings, landing gear, and engines, however the fuselage was totally new and thus an entirely different aircraft.


----------



## Wingspanner (Aug 28, 2011)

@Viking - my typo - got my ones mixed. I was referring to the TU-114



> The Tu-114 used the Tu-95's wings, landing gear, and engines



Yep - the same



> however the fuselage was totally new and thus an *entirely* different aircraft.



Eh? *Same* engines, wings and landing gear.... but 'an *entirely*' different aircraft... Do you know what 'entirely' means? I think what we have here is a contradiction in terms. It was a _development_ of the basic airframe - and no different in that respect than the various marks of Spitfire... They're all still Spitfires (The mk 21 for example had an entirely new wing, tail, engine, cockpit, prop, armament etc. compared to the mk.1 - but its still a Spitfire).... 

The TU-114 (usually called the civilan version of the TU-95 in the sources I've read) _was_ used for AEW... (oh, and whilst adding to the stack of extra duties never undertaken by the buff, I also note that the TU-95 was used for ASW work too.)





- website is http://www.vectorsite.net/avbear.html

Was there a civilian version of the Buff (whether 'entirely' or partly different?) ? Nope.

My point (which still stands) was that the B52 can't be logically argued to be more versatile than the TU-95 airframe (or major components of, if you're going to split hairs) which was adaptable and used in more roles. Thats simply an objective fact. It doesn't denegrate the buff, merely illustrates that 'better' rather depends on what you're talking about.

Which is 'better' as a bomber? The performance stats speak for themselves. But which is the better aircraft overall, as per the thread title? I reserve judgement once again for all the reasons I explained earlier.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 28, 2011)

The B-52 seems far more effective in its many roles. The B-52 is huge in comparison with the Tu-95. I suspect the commies would have loved to have had the B-52 instead of, or, maybe, in addition to, the Tu-95. A comparison of size is impressive. There is a bit of perspective here but you can easily see the difference in fuselage size.

If I had my choice, the B-52 is an easy selection. I certainly would rather fly or ride in a B-52 than a Tu-95!

File:B-52 Tu-95.jpg - Wikimedia Commons


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 28, 2011)

Wingspanner said:


> *Same* engines, wings and landing gear.... but 'an *entirely*' different aircraft... Do you know what 'entirely' means? I think what we have here is a contradiction in terms. It was a _development_ of the basic airframe - and no different in that respect than the various marks of Spitfire... They're all still Spitfires (The mk 21 for example had an entirely new wing, tail, engine, cockpit, prop, armament etc. compared to the mk.1 - but its still a Spitfire)....



You take the engine, wheels and chassis and a Jaguar. You put on a truck body, all new interior and electronics. Do you have a Jaguar or another vehicle?

IMO there is a big difference between being versitile and progressive improvements. What I mean by that is:

*Versitile:* You have a large aircraft built as a bomber. You add pods to it and it becomes a reconnaissiance aircraft. You slide a skid into the bombay and it becomes a cargo aircraft. You add this and it becomes that.

*Progressive Improvements: * You have an F4F Wildcat, which leads to the F6F Hellcast, which leads to the F8F Bearcat.... (I think the Spitfire would fall into this area, but I honestly don't know enough of the plane to make this judgement).



Wingspanner said:


> The TU-114 (usually called the civilan version of the TU-95 in the sources I've read) _was_ used for AEW... (oh, and whilst adding to the stack of extra duties never undertaken by the buff, I also note that the TU-95 was used for ASW work too.)
> 
> View attachment 176540
> - website is The Tupolev Tu-95/142



In regards to ASW Work, the B-52 is certified to carry up to 51 Mk62 Mines which are specifically designed for anti-submarine operations and is part of the USAF ASW Doctrine as per DOD Directive 5100.1. To show the BUFF's versatility, the plane did not have to be heavily modified or specifically built in order to fill this roll. You just attach the mines to the aircraft and take off.




Wingspanner said:


> Was there a civilian version of the Buff (whether 'entirely' or partly different?) ? Nope


The only true Tu-95 Passenger Aircraft were 2 that were pulled off of the production line and made into Tu-116, this was done while the Tu-114 was still being designed. Could this have been done with the B-52? Yes, but then again this could have been done with most bombers anway (this was done with the B-17, B-24 the Lancaster). However, please note only 2 Tu 116's were built which would lead me to think that it was not exactly a resounding success as they were quickly replaced as soon as the Tu 114 was available.


----------



## Wingspanner (Aug 28, 2011)

> You take the engine, wheels and chassis and a Jaguar. You put on a truck body, all new interior and electronics. Do you have a Jaguar or another vehicle?



There's enough of the key parts of the machine left, so most people would call it a highly modified Jaguar, wouldn't they? They would certainly tell you how _versatile_ the Jaguar was to have allowed them to make such a weird and radical set of modifications... 

So, what's the difference between what you term the 'progressive' developments of the Spitfire and the TU-95 and its 'entirely different' variants? 

The Spitfire mk 21 gets a radically changed fuselage with a bubble canopy, and a new tail, updated engine and new wings... but _its still_ a Spitfire as far as we're both concerned (?) However, to make a semantic point to defend your spurious argument here, I have to accept that the Tu-114 is an '*entirely*' different aircraft from the TU-95 in order for you to defend the B-52 (yeee-haw!) as a more 'versitile' aircraft than the pinko commie bit of engineering  ?? Seems to me we're back down to the selective confusion of opinion as 'fact'.



> In regards to ASW Work, the B-52 is certified to carry up to 51 Mk62 Mines which are specifically designed for anti-submarine operations and is part of the USAF ASW Doctrine as per DOD Directive 5100.1.



Interesting. But.. Flying a bomber over a stretch of water and dropping some ordnance is hardly the same as claiming a dedicated ASW role... (is it?!) . I guess in which case, any military aircraft which has been certified to carry a mine is 'ASW capable'... Does the B-52 do it though? Has it ever been deployed operationally to do it?

Re an airliner version


> Could this have been done with the B-52? Yes



( Could. Crikey, I can hear the Stars and Stripes playing in the background...  )

... but it wasn't. So? And? That point seems like an irrelevance to the topic of this thread (eh?)



> However, please note only 2 Tu 116's were built which would lead me to think that it was not exactly a resounding success as they were quickly replaced as soon as the Tu 114 was available.



Er - weren't they the prototypes for the TU-114? The TU-114 served from the late 50s until 1976... hardly a failure (not that its of much importance to the main point, the proof of the versatility of the airframe ( namely, the wings, landing gear and engines - or a good 75%+ of the aircraft by weight/design, whatever marque name/number you want to assign to it!)

I'm finding this line of argument rather strange. The TU-95 is an excellent piece of engineering, proven if, by nothing else, than by the fact that its still in service after all these years. Its been employed in a wider listed variety of_ dedicated_ roles than the B-52. The title of this thread is 'which is best' and some misguided absolute statements were made about the B-52 being 'more 'versitile'. I haven't made a judgement - but feel the need to stifle the jingoism with a bit of logic. If your patriotism demands you claim the buff is the best as a matter of principal, be my guest and beat your chest and crack open another Bud!



Anyway, I've said enough and got completely confused in the process. Like I said, I'm sitting on the fence as to which is best. They're both great in my book.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 28, 2011)

I am confused as to how "patriotism" has even come into play here? Seems to me someone is baiting and fishing...


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 28, 2011)

"... Seems to me someone is baiting and fishing..."

I wonder which one he'd prefer to fly 12 hour missions in. 

MM


----------



## davparlr (Aug 28, 2011)

Some questions I don't know. Optimum altitude for Turboprops are at a lower altitudes than for turbofans. What was the normal cruise altitude of the Tu-95? Also, the supersonic props must consume much more power than subsonic props, does anyone know what the difference is?

Some calculations on load carrying capacities of the two aircraft. The previously posted data on Tu-95 shows a loaded weight of 376,200 lbs, or 91% Max takeoff weight. The loaded weight of the B-52 is shown as 265,000 lbs or 54% Max takeoff weight. If loaded to 91% takeoff weight, the loaded weight of the B-52 would now be 444,080 lbs. Compared to empty weights, the load carrying capacity of the Tu-95 is 178,200 lbs, the load carrying capacity of B-52 is 259,080 lb, or 80,880 lbs more than the Tu-95. Since the B-52 has approximately the same range as the Tu-95, 8,960 miles to 9,400 miles, at a loaded weight of 265,000 lbs, this is just lots of added bombs and/or fuel. Or, since the extra capacity of the B-52 is about half the loaded weight of the Tu-95, for every two missions of the B-52, you would need three missions of a Tu-95. Kind of a big thumbnail, though.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 28, 2011)

Wingspanner said:


> There's enough of the key parts of the machine left, so most people would call it a highly modified Jaguar, wouldn't they? They would certainly tell you how _versatile_ the Jaguar was to have allowed them to make such a weird and radical set of modifications...


So for the past number of years then, most of the Jags produced should be considered as Fords and not Jags?



Wingspanner said:


> So, what's the difference between what you term the 'progressive' developments of the Spitfire and the TU-95 and its 'entirely different' variants?
> 
> The Spitfire mk 21 gets a radically changed fuselage with a bubble canopy, and a new tail, updated engine and new wings... but _its still_ a Spitfire as far as we're both concerned (?) However, to make a semantic point to defend your spurious argument here, I have to accept that the Tu-114 is an '*entirely*' different aircraft from the TU-95 in order for you to defend the B-52 (yeee-haw!) as a more 'versitile' aircraft than the pinko commie bit of engineering  ?? Seems to me we're back down to the selective confusion of opinion as 'fact'.



I do not know enough about the Spitfire to address that. It does not matter if you accept that the Tu-114 was a different aircraft or not, in Duffy Kandalov's _Tupolev The Man and His Aircraft_ it states it was a different aircraft. Did it have some commonality with the Tu-95? Yes, but it was not a Tu-95





Wingspanner said:


> Interesting. But.. Flying a bomber over a stretch of water and dropping some ordnance is hardly the same as claiming a dedicated ASW role... (is it?!) . I guess in which case, any military aircraft which has been certified to carry a mine is 'ASW capable'... Does the B-52 do it though? Has it ever been deployed operationally to do it?


 Yes, the first time was during the Vietnam War. 



Wingspanner said:


> Re an airliner version
> 
> Er - weren't they the prototypes for the TU-114? The TU-114 served from the late 50s until 1976... hardly a failure (not that its of much importance to the main point, the proof of the versatility of the airframe ( namely, the wings, landing gear and engines - or a good 75%+ of the aircraft by weight/design, whatever marque name/number you want to assign to it!)



No, the Tu-116 was built while the Tu-114 was on the design table. Per the above mentioned book page 131:
_
Nikolai Bazenkov was diverted from other duties to
prepare a passenger version of the Tu-95. Two aircraft
were taken from the production line at Kuibyshev. No
armaments were fitted, and all military equipment was
removed. With the original airframe of the Tu-95, a
passenger compartment was installed behind the wing
spar; it consisted of a pressurised cabin with two
sections, each of which could accommodate twenty
passengers in VIP luxury. A kitchen, toilet and service
room were also installed. A fitted stairs was installed
so passengers could board and disembark without a
need for special airport equipment._

_Never intended for normal commercial service, the
two Tu-116s were little used. Originally painted in
military marks (7801 and 7802), one aircraft was later
given the civilian registration SSSR-76462, and is now
preserved in the Ulyanovsk Museum of Civil Aviation._

Where exactly did you get your information that 75% of the Tu 114 was from the Tu 95?




Wingspanner said:


> The TU-95 is an excellent piece of engineering, proven if, by nothing else, than by the fact that its still in service after all these years. Its been employed in a wider listed variety of_ dedicated_ roles than the B-52. The title of this thread is 'which is best' and some misguided absolute statements were made about the B-52 being 'more 'versitile'.



I do not believe anybody has said the Tu-95 was not worthy and I agree it's a pretty darned good aircraft but I will summarize my stances on the B-52. 

1 - It can carry 70k lbs of ordanence, vs the Tu 95's 33k lbs.
2 - Inorder for the Tu-95 to do the following: (bomber, missile carrier, recon, maritime patrol, ASW) you have to have 5 separate aircraft, but only 1 B-52.





Wingspanner said:


> If your patriotism demands you claim the buff is the best as a matter of principal, be my guest and beat your chest and crack open another Bud!



Principle nor patriotism has anything to do with my choices and I certainly have no problem stating which aircraft I think is better, regardless of whom produced it.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 28, 2011)

Not much I can add to this discussion. but I cant help thinking and comparing the devastating uses that the B-52 was put to when used in the tactical support role. Werent b-52s used in the early parts of the invasion of Afghanistan? Pretty sure they were, and further, am pretty sure they were absolutely devastating when used to take out taliban positions.

Previously i have alluded to how greatly we respected maritime Bears in the late 70s/early 80s. They had great capability primarily because of their range. However that capability was never proven. Nor can i recall ever hearing of Bears being used to support Soviet moves in the 80's whilst invading Afghanistan. If true, why not? by the same token I am unaware of any great usage of B-52s in the matitime strike role. Neither am i aware of great usage of B-52s in the recon role. Perhapos they were so used, but I am just unaware of that role for them


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 29, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Not much I can add to this discussion. but I cant help thinking and comparing the devastating uses that the B-52 was put to when used in the tactical support role. Werent b-52s used in the early parts of the invasion of Afghanistan? Pretty sure they were, and further, am pretty sure they were absolutely devastating when used to take out taliban positions.
> 
> Previously i have alluded to how greatly we respected maritime Bears in the late 70s/early 80s. They had great capability primarily because of their range. However that capability was never proven. Nor can i recall ever hearing of Bears being used to support Soviet moves in the 80's whilst invading Afghanistan. If true, why not? by the same token I am unaware of any great usage of B-52s in the matitime strike role. Neither am i aware of great usage of B-52s in the recon role. Perhapos they were so used, but I am just unaware of that role for them



52s are still being used over Afghaninam...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 29, 2011)

The fact that the B-52 was never used in any other role but a bomber doesn't take anything away from its ability or that the TU-95 was more adaptable or versitle. The Soviets made use of the TU-95 as an ASW/ recon aircraft because of airframe availability. The US had airframes available to fulfill other recon roles and was better fits for their roles that not only made them more effective, but provided better crew comfort. Even after the IL-38 came along, the TU-95 was still being deployed as airframes were readily available.


----------



## Altea (Aug 31, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> 1. Its LOUD - you can actually hear it from miles away


But, the main detection in 50ies were radars, not ears...


> 2. Huge radar signature


Ok, B-52 was not thin, not stealth too.


> 3. I question the structural integrity of the airframe at continued low level operations at high speeds. I do know that some of the current fleet had to undergo mods for airframe fatigue flying at their current mission profile, so I could only imagine how much worse it would be if the aircraft was deployed at low level.


*Some* current fleet maybe had fatigue airframes problems...But what do *you* know about Tu-95 structural airframes integrity, resistance, calculations, wöhler curves, vibration trials? 


> 4. Limited payload


Sure, the plane is smaller and lighter, but again what is the relatrionship with LL or HiLoHI mission profiles?


> 5. Fuel consumption - Turbo Props are not efficent at high speeds at low level


And Turbo-jets, are? Have you got specific consumption tables for both planes. Thrust vs Altitude charts?

Regards


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2011)

Altea said:


> But, the main detection in 50ies were radars, not ears...


It was - but its pretty bad when you can hear your enemy coming from 40 miles away. The TU-95 is so loud that acoustic operators on ships and on P-3s miles away can hear it. Intercepting fighters (F-4s, F-106s) were able to hear it as they pulled along side of it. Consider that on low level mission and the opponent wont even need radar to know the aircraft is incoming!


Altea said:


> Ok, B-52 was not thin, not stealth too.


Both aircraft have the RCS of a barn door but the B-52 will have a lower RCS than the TU-95 just based on configuration. There have been mods done to the B-52 to lower the RCS be adding some composite components to parts of the aircraft's structure.


Altea said:


> *Some* current fleet maybe had fatigue airframes problems...But what do *you* know about Tu-95 structural airframes integrity, resistance, calculations, wöhler curves, vibration trials?


I don't specifically - what I do know is the aircraft was and continues to be modified and repaired because of fatigue problems, mainly due to its engines, something common on most large turbo props. It's commercial cousin the TU-114 was taken out of service in the mid 70s because of airframe fatigue. This has been well documented.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avbear.html#m6



Altea said:


> Sure, the plane is smaller and lighter, but again what is the relatrionship with LL or HiLoHI mission profiles?


Depends what the mission is and what weapons you're going to carry.


Altea said:


> And Turbo-jets, are? Have you got specific consumption tables for both planes. Thrust vs Altitude charts?
> 
> Regards


I don't - but probably could come up with one on the B-52, but in the end all one would have to do is look at both aircraft best economical cruise and if you believe numbers extracted from internet sources, the both aircraft are impressive but I think you're going to find the B-52 still comes out ahead with an unrefuled range of over 10,000 miles.

And as far as turbos props being more efficent at low altitude? Not at high speeds and on the deck and especially not when propeller tip speeds are at mach one.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 31, 2011)

If you've noticed stealth aircraft have the inlets of the jets hidden behind grills, that's because the blades on the inlet turbine are very good radar reflectors. Now if the blades of a jet turbine are good radar reflectors, can you imagine how good a radar reflector the propeller blades on a turboprop would be ?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2011)

tyrodtom said:


> If you've noticed stealth aircraft have the inlets of the jets hidden behind grills, that's because the blades on the inlet turbine are very good radar reflectors. Now if the blades of a jet turbine are good radar reflectors, can you imagine how good a radar reflector the propeller blades on a turboprop would be ?



BINGO!


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 31, 2011)

B52 actually showed up as 2 targets on radar because of the size


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> B52 actually showed up as 2 targets on radar because of the size


So a TU-95 would probably show up as 4!


----------



## parsifal (Aug 31, 2011)

Not much of a fan of the russian bird I take it joe.....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Not much of a fan of the russian bird I take it joe.....


Actually I like the Bear - as a kid I thought it was a really neat looking aircraft and it has been "force fed" into many roles that the west would have just developed another airframe to accomplish (B-52 - P-3). The Soviets took an airframe and stretched the life and function out of it as much as they can and this achievement is nothing short of remarkable, but when comparing the Bear to the B-52 in its original role, I think its quite evident the B-52 is the better strategic bomber.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 1, 2011)

I'll go with the B-52 for best bomber...I'm sure the Bear has good attributes, but the Buff has (on more than one occasion) physically altered the landscape doing what it was designed to do: drop bombs. Lots of bombs.

As far as being good looking, since when was the performance record of a warplane gauged by prettiness?
Case in point: F4F, P-47, A-10, etc...the B-52 looks like it's going to bring down some hurt, even when it's sitting on the ramp 

Also, why would they ever want to use the B-52 as a commercial/passenger aircraft? They have the Boeing 747 for that. And for those that may not know, the 747 was originally designed as a military aircraft (which lost to the C-5A, if I remember correctly).

Just my two cents worth (adjusted for inflation)


----------



## Altea (Sep 1, 2011)

So noise, radar RCS are not plusses, no ostacles too for low alt missions.

Tu-95 history is well documented too, crews were currently practicing Low flights with general HiLoHi mission profiles. No fatigue problems occured as well as manufacturer TBO was not overpassed or prolongated (as it was finally done for ecomomical problems).
Moreover during MAKSes Bears are often demonstrating some (poor of course, they arne not Su-26, CAP-231 anyway...) aerobatics, that shows there are some noticeable structure strenght margins at least.

So if B-52 encontered itself some resistance, fatigue problems it should'nt be automatically transmitted to the others planes of its category.

This is rather unsurprising growing from 80 000 (empty) to 220 000kg (TO) it look likes the frog of the fable that wants to swell at a beef's size...

About low alts, the output of Tupolev blades is increasing, due to that Mach speed is higher (in km/h) than at high alts (1240 km/h vs 990).

Now, personnaly i'v got much more respect for Tupolev airframe or Myassetchev (it's forbidden in the story, i don't know why...) than for Boeing's. I would have tendency to congratulate more Westinghouse engeeners and PW ones more than Boeing's ones.

It should be remembered that at time the TU-95 was projected (early 50ies), there were *no* soviet turbojet with low specific conso. to be fitted on an intercontinental bomber. First Myassetchevs failed to fulfill the state 12 000km range request (only 9 300) despite a 5 points higher L/D than Tu-95, but the Tu-95 succeed with more than 12 400 on trials. Due to the much higher output of Turboprops vs Turbojets at about 750-800km/h speeds (it was providing > 30% fuel economy and even 50% at low speeds).

Finally, late marine Tu-95 had 17 800, or even 22 400 km range with improved Kuznetsovs. But is little off-top.


So the success of the B-52's project due to america's technology and economical level was not really a surprise.


Now, for the USSR that had the *real* GNP lower than West Germany+Benelux countries one, it was a remarquable result.

In conclusion it was a respunse from the weak to the strong. America's power was challenged, and answered *twice*. (Both by Myassetchev and Tupolev.) Don't forget that Tu-95 (called Tu-20 in west newspapers) coasted billions of dollars to american's and canadian's happy tax payers, to modernise the radars chain.

At ecomomical war, SU won also this battle.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 1, 2011)

Altea said:


> So noise, radar RCS are not plusses, no ostacles too for low alt missions.


They are if you're bombing tactical targets or trying your best to avoid radar


Altea said:


> Tu-95 history is well documented too, crews were currently practicing Low flights with general HiLoHi mission profiles. No fatigue problems occured as well as manufacturer TBO was not overpassed or prolongated (as it was finally done for ecomomical problems).
> Moreover during MAKSes Bears are often demonstrating some (poor of course, they arne not Su-26, CAP-231 anyway...) aerobatics, that shows there are some noticeable structure strenght margins at least.


OK but how does this show that either plane was the better bomber?


Altea said:


> So if B-52 encontered itself some resistance, fatigue problems it should'nt be automatically transmitted to the others planes of its category.


No - the aircraft was modifed and was capable of fulfilling its role as it still does. The TU series actually had to be removed from service in some cases because of fatigue, well documented as well. The Indian Navy is currently modifying their fleet as we speak.


Altea said:


> This is rather unsurprising growing from 80 000 (empty) to 220 000kg (TO) it look likes the frog of the fable that wants to swell at a beef's size...


I don't understand your point but ok...


Altea said:


> About low alts, the output of Tupolev blades is increasing, due to that Mach speed is higher (in km/h) than at high alts (1240 km/h vs 990).


And it is also viabrating more and running in denser air still limiting its performance


Altea said:


> Now, personnaly i'v got much more respect for Tupolev airframe or Myassetchev (it's forbidden in the story, i don't know why...) than for Boeing's. I would have tendency to congratulate more Westinghouse engeeners and PW ones more than Boeing's ones.


Again I don't understand your point but ok...


Altea said:


> It should be remembered that at time the TU-95 was projected (early 50ies), there were *no* soviet turbojet with low specific conso. to be fitted on an intercontinental bomber. First Myassetchevs failed to fulfill the state 12 000km range request (only 9 300) despite a 5 points higher L/D than Tu-95, but the Tu-95 succeed with more than 12 400 on trials. Due to the much higher output of Turboprops vs Turbojets at about 750-800km/h speeds (it was providing > 30% fuel economy and even 50% at low speeds).



And the B-52 is capable of flying over 10,000 miles unrefuled - your point? BTW the B-52 came about in the late 40s and had the jet engines to enable it to perform the role the Soviets wanted the The Bear and Myassetchevs to perform. If I remember correctly the latter was a dismal failure, many of them turned into tankers and its design bureu reassigned.


Altea said:


> Finally, late marine Tu-95 had 17 800, or even 22 400 km range with improved Kuznetsovs. But is little off-top.


And its also performing maritine patrol, a totally different mission with no payload except crew and surveillance equipment



Altea said:


> So the success of the B-52's project due to america's technology and economical level was not really a surprise.


OK...



Altea said:


> Now, for the USSR that had the *real* GNP lower than West Germany+Benelux countries one, it was a remarquable result.


The TU-95 was a great aircraft, the B-52 was the better strategic bomber...


Altea said:


> In conclusion it was a respunse from the weak to the strong. America's power was challenged, and answered *twice*. (Both by Myassetchev and Tupolev.) Don't forget that Tu-95 (called Tu-20 in west newspapers) coasted billions of dollars to american's and canadian's happy tax payers, to modernise the radars chain.
> 
> At ecomomical war, SU won also this battle.


SU won the battle?!?!The SU doesn't exist anymore! You're now making political excuses for coming in second place! BTW that radar system is still operating today, finally slowly being replaced and had well paid for it self 10x over. Please stay on subject because your last comment was ridiculous and is evident of post cold war rhetoric.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 1, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And its also performing maritine patrol, a totally different mission with no payload except crew and surveillance equipment




I agree with just about everything in your last reply to Altea, but i was always led to believe that the bear undertook those super long range patrols armed and ready for combat. Perhaps not at 22000 km, but still very long legged. Thats probably the one advatage that the Bear can claim, at least in the Maritime role.....its range


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 1, 2011)

Altea said:


> At ecomomical war, SU won also this battle.



How do you figure that? 

The Soviet Union collapsed economicaly and politically.


----------



## Altea (Sep 1, 2011)

> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > They are if you're bombing tactical targets or trying your best to avoid radar
> ...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 1, 2011)

parsifal said:


> I agree with just about everything in your last reply to Altea, but *i was always led to believe that the bear undertook those super long range patrols armed and ready for combat.* Perhaps not at 22000 km, but still very long legged. Thats probably the one advatage that the Bear can claim, at least in the Maritime role.....its range


Maybe in a capacity to defend itself but if Soviet crews operated anywhere close to the same roles as USN P-3s they were not always on station armed (and I believe the Soviets mimicked a lot of the USN ASW Patrol doctrine) - that's not to say that when they reached the end of their mission their replacement would come on station fully armed.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 1, 2011)

TU95s in the 60s and 70s were not so interested in attacking submarines as shadowing and attacking key surface assets in the allied surface navy. Surely this made their mission profiles and weapons specs different to P3s. RAAF P3s can theoretically attack surface ships, but in reality could not until fitted with LR cruise missiles. We didnt rceive them in our P3s until the 90s from memory. Plus we never considered the Orions as having sufficient performance to operate in any "hot" environments. But then, maybe thats just Navy giving the AF boys some stick. 

The Bears we encountered were equipped mostly with LR cruise missiles mostly, notoriously innaccurate, but relying on numbers to swamp defences and get at least one hit in. The theory was never tested. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistaon, 1979-80, they flooded the Arabian and Indian Oceans with these aircraft (we think there were about 30 of them, based in Temen) . We were told we had to achieve interceptions at 320Km, which was difficult without any AEW. With just 8 A-4s, fitted out as fighters, it was more than a bit desperate. Our standing patrol was two aircraft, fitted with 4 AIMs, plus a LR tank. The airborne guys had about 8 minutes to intercept from memory. We also had two further skyhawks readied and on deck, with pilots strapped in and prepped, thay would immediately fly off and replace the stabding patrol as soon as they were given the intercept order.

Soviets usually approached as a bunch of 8-15 a/c and would skirt the no go zone, testing our reaction times and by their action, challenging us.

It was hairy stuff. Our AAW DDG was not equipped with CIWs apart from MGs and 5in cannon. We really did not have much anti-missile capability back then, our primary defence if the Soviets had achieved a firing solution was ECM.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 1, 2011)

I was just reading where the B-52's crews based in Mather AFB, Calif were trained to carry and launch Harpoons at Naval targets, with up to 8 being carried.


----------



## Altea (Sep 2, 2011)

parsifal said:


> ... Perhaps not at 22000 km, but still very long legged....



Well, i'm selling it (22 400 km information) the price i baught (0), from specialised aviation magazines. Maybe with refuelling? 
I'm not fluent in Tu-95 enough to discuss...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 2, 2011)

Altea said:


> It was *not the subject* of your sentence. It only shows that it (Tu-95) is able to perform low level missions.


It’s not a question of performing the low level mission, it’s a question of performing it continually and having the aircraft self-destruct over a given time period.


Altea said:


> It does, but B-52 were modified (reinforced) after 2000 hours. Tu-114 flew more than 15 000 h before some weakness was observed on engine lifting panels.


15,000 hours is not high time for a large multi engine aircraft, especially an airliner. Bottom line, the problem was so extensive the TU-114 was withdrawn from service

I don't know where you're coming up with a "2000" hour mod on the B-52. I have seen and worked with people at Tinker AFB who is involved in the PDM life extension program for the B-52. Depending on hours flown and what if any discrepancies are found during routine inspections will determine overhaul times and I can assure you it’s not "2,000 hours" "arbitrarily." Center strives to improve B-52 PDM line


Altea said:


> Probably the Tu-95 structure could "Bear"  ha! ha! more G-loads. And try some evasive manoeuvres.


Hard to say, you would have to have a fly off between both aircraft.


Altea said:


> And why do you think that denser air does not limiting B-52's performance, as well?


Because it is not driven by propellers. Air density will have a greater effect on Propeller driven aircraft (even though turbo prop) than it will on jet engine performance.


Altea said:


> Explain that to one of my best friends that is operating on ATR's, and worked on Dashes, Fokkers and even Antonovs why* your *vibrating theory is not working with his planes?


I can - I can't speak for the Antonov, but I have too worked on Fokkers "Dashes" (I'm assuming DHC-6, 7 or 8 ) P-3s and C-130s and there are provisions within the maintenance programs that will address certain inspections and Standard Repairs for discrepancies found during routine inspections. Some of the items the manufacturer tell you to look for are based on potential structural failures based on viabration and fatigue. On the F-27 these items are listed in Structural Integrity Program Document 27438, on the DHC-6, it's listed in PSM 1-6-7. I don't know how ATR address their inspections but I would guess it could be found within its maintenance program as well.....

I have been involved in managing 3 DHC-6 aircraft for the past 7 years and have been involved in these inspections, as a matter of fact we have one coming up for a new wing installation in the fall. Just for the record, I have been in aircraft maintenance for over 32 years and have worked on dozens of different types of aircraft, so I know a little something about maintenance programs, especially in turbo-prop aircraft and what vibrating engines do to airframes over a given period of time. I'm also a pilot and flight instructor.


Altea said:


> Is it max record range or operational range? My point is that 7500 miles O.R. are enough to reach each point in the USA from SU.


Both - the B-52 has set at least one record for flying over 10,000 miles unrefueled, but I do know other aircraft have done it too either during an actual mission or during a diversion.


Altea said:


> Never said the opposite. Considering the mission, the "Molot" was able to reach america anyway, with no way back. It wasn't changing a lot with Tu-95 crews, thant considered undecend to go back after the nuclear launch after killing millions of people as just after a milk run.
> Most of them considered as "normal" to die with their victims. It was dirty missions at dirty time.


OK...


Altea said:


> Whatever, the Myassetchev was improved and soon fulfilled the 12 000km request, 1) by refuelling, 2) by changing of engine mark.


It still was an attempt to do what the B-52 could do and it was not successful


Altea said:


> Ok, but it should be noticed that initial Tu-95's bombload of 12 000 kg was later increased to 20 000 kg in order to take away the soviet 50 magatonnes bomb.


 OK... Impressive but the B-52's normal bomb load is 31,500 kg


Altea said:


> Better on that level of destruction? Carrying 500 times the power of Hiroshima bomb or only 300, was not changing much the issue for the attacked country...


Not when you're looking at carrying that type of weapon, at that point it makes no difference, better in carrying conventional weapons during a sustained operation.


Altea said:


> SU wont *that* battle. But lost the war, no doubts.


I still don't see how the SU "won that battle." The counter measures against the Soviet Bomber threat not only paid for itself but it provided thousands of jobs and actually opened up territory and resources that would not have been available if the DEW line was never built. Yes, it was initially built on tax payer money but because of local economies that were created after it was built has long paid for itself and probably actually made money 


Altea said:


> I have just said, that soviets had initially *no means * to reach america with a strategic jet-bomber, but succeeded anyway in this mission using some (TsAGUI) technical tricks of the trade, brains and scientifical knowledge.


To a point - it was recognized that the Soviet bomber force was inferior when compared to the US but it was never taken for granted as numbers in lieu of technology were perceived as the main threat in dealing with a Soviet bomber attack.


Altea said:


> So *my *respect! Not at rhetoric but at technical point of view.They were not considered as secund (sometimes first) military power only by being mentally retarded.


Don't understand your point but ok....


Altea said:


> Moreover as the petrol price would increase like it does, we all will use Tupôlev-Kuznetsov formulas soon...


And Russia is not the only country developing large fuel efficent turbines either...


Altea said:


> Anyway, as a strategic bomber, i already said, the B-52 was heavier, bigger, more powerfull and could carry more loads.
> Now, saying that it was *tremendously *better just for that, seems quite excessive.


I can agree with that....


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 2, 2011)

Dumb question from a non maintainer , I was under the understanding that on larger aircraft it wasn't so much hours that counted but cycles of landing and take offs


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 2, 2011)

parsifal said:


> TU95s in the 60s and 70s were not so interested in attacking submarines as shadowing and attacking key surface assets in the allied surface navy. Surely this made their mission profiles and weapons specs different to P3s. RAAF P3s can theoretically attack surface ships, but in reality could not until fitted with LR cruise missiles. We didnt rceive them in our P3s until the 90s from memory. Plus we never considered the Orions as having sufficient performance to operate in any "hot" environments. But then, maybe thats just Navy giving the AF boys some stick.


Your P-3Cs actually arrived in the 1980s when your "B" models were "traded in," refurbished and later sold to the Portugese. I worked on that program. 

As far as their mission profile, you're probably right but there's little difference on what they do when flying around on station. 


parsifal said:


> The Bears we encountered were equipped mostly with LR cruise missiles mostly, notoriously innaccurate, but relying on numbers to swamp defences and get at least one hit in. The theory was never tested. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistaon, 1979-80, they flooded the Arabian and Indian Oceans with these aircraft (we think there were about 30 of them, based in Temen) . We were told we had to achieve interceptions at 320Km, which was difficult without any AEW. With just 8 A-4s, fitted out as fighters, it was more than a bit desperate. Our standing patrol was two aircraft, fitted with 4 AIMs, plus a LR tank. The airborne guys had about 8 minutes to intercept from memory. We also had two further skyhawks readied and on deck, with pilots strapped in and prepped, thay would immediately fly off and replace the stabding patrol as soon as they were given the intercept order.
> 
> Soviets usually approached as a bunch of 8-15 a/c and would skirt the no go zone, testing our reaction times and by their action, challenging us.
> 
> It was hairy stuff. Our AAW DDG was not equipped with CIWs apart from MGs and 5in cannon. We really did not have much anti-missile capability back then, our primary defence if the Soviets had achieved a firing solution was ECM.


Interesting....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 2, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> Dumb question from a non maintainer , I was under the understanding that on larger aircraft it wasn't so much hours that counted but cycles of landing and take offs


That's considered as well and emphasis will depend on the manufacturer


----------



## Gixxerman (Dec 27, 2011)

Buff for me too, just immense as a bomber still performing in its primary (tho thank God non-nuclear) role.



Matt308 said:


> I do have to admit that the propulsion units on the Bear were ground breaking phenoms. The A400M surely has learned some lessons from these NK-12 constant speed turbo-props.



Yeah true not to dismiss the excelent Russian engineering involved but having said that......... aren't they the ultimate evolution of the German WW2 Junkers Jumo engines?


----------

