Tu-95 vs B52: Which is best?
- Thread starter gjs238
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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.
But, the main detection in 50ies were radars, not ears...
Ok, B-52 was not thin, not stealth too.
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?
Sure, the plane is smaller and lighter, but again what is the relatrionship with LL or HiLoHI mission profiles?
And Turbo-jets, are? Have you got specific consumption tables for both planes. Thrust vs Altitude charts?
Regards
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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!
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.
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
Depends what the mission is and what weapons you're going to carry.
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.
Last edited:
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
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
BINGO!
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
B52 actually showed up as 2 targets on radar because of the size
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
So a TU-95 would probably show up as 4!
parsifal
Colonel
Not much of a fan of the russian bird I take it joe.....
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
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)
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)
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.
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.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
They are if you're bombing tactical targets or trying your best to avoid radar
OK but how does this show that either plane was the better bomber?
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.
I don't understand your point but ok...
And it is also viabrating more and running in denser air still limiting its performance
Again I don't understand your point but ok...
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.
And its also performing maritine patrol, a totally different mission with no payload except crew and surveillance equipment
OK...
The TU-95 was a great aircraft, the B-52 was the better strategic bomber...
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.
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
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
It was not the subject of your sentence. It only shows that it (Tu-95) is able to perform low level missions.
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.
Probably the Tu-95 structure could "Bear"
And why do you think that denser air does not limiting B-52's performance, as well?
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?
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.
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.
Whatever, the Myassetchev was improved and soon fulfilled the 12 000km request, 1) by refuelling, 2) by changing of engine mark.
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.
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...
SU wont that battle. But lost the war, no doubts.
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.
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.
Moreover as the petrol price would increase like it does, we all will use Tupôlev-Kuznetsov formulas soon...
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.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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
Colonel
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.
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
Lieutenant General
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.
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...
