Tu-95 vs B52: Which is best?

[Matt308]

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Matt308]

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]

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

 

[Matt308]

Well certainly that one at any rate!

 

[rousseau]

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

 

[Jerry W. Loper]

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

 

[gjs238]

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

 

[davebender]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.