Tu-95 vs B52: Which is best?

[pbfoot]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[parsifal]

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]

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

 

[Altea]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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.

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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).

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[michaelmaltby]

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

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

MM

 

[davparlr]

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]

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?

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

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.

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?

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.

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]

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