Tu-95 vs B52: Which is best?

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

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 Bottom line, the problem was so extensive the TU-114 was withdrawn from service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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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

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

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.

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

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.

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....

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...

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

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?