Tu-95 vs B52: Which is best?

[gjs238]

You choose the terms - which comes out on top?

 

[ppopsie]

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

 

[Matt308]

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

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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]

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

 

[skipperbob]

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

 

[vikingBerserker]

Gotta go with the Buff as well.

 

[Matt308]

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]

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]

Gotta go with B52 on this one.

 

[parsifal]

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]

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

 

[The Basket]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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