By: J Boyle
- 15th May 2006 at 04:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
With all due respects to the TU-95, I'll say the B-52.
I've flown in a Stratofortress, an awesome ride 500ft above Montana
-by being a pure jet, it skipped over turboprops technologically..a more daring design at the time?
-not a bad looking airplane (before the EVS "nose bumps" anyway...)
-and finally... it was never pointed in my direction with nukes... there is something to be said for that.... :D
By: jackehammond
- 15th May 2006 at 12:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Dear Members,
In the high altitude and medium altitude the B-52 is the king. But at low altitude the TU-95 has the advantage big time. The B-52 can't equal the TU-95 in either range or speed at low altitude. It is actually far more payload/range efficent over the B-52 because of its engines.
TU-95s use to do reconn missions in the UK-Iceland Gap and were intercepted by RAF Lightenings and Phantoms. The TU-95s would just put the metal to the floor and the Lightenings and Phantoms had a hard time keeping up if at low altitude and to keep an eye on the TU-95s both RAF aircraft had to have tanker support if shadowing a TU-95 at low altitude.
Today, the TU-95 would by far be the more cost effective JDAM platform for use over Afghanistan on standing watch patrols. It is just far more efficent in fuel use.
Either way, the TU-95 forced the US to spend BILLIONS on air defense. It was one of the few weapons that the Russians developed that put the US into a spending spiral. Eisenhower was shocked when U-2 photos discovered that the TU-95 was the main strategic bomber and not the Bison.
Jack E. Hammond
New
By: Anonymous
- 15th May 2006 at 17:12Permalink- Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:29
Thanks for clarifying contrailjj and Ken. It's just that the post made it sound like the Tu-95 family might be the only ones which would have been weird.
By: BIGVERN1966
- 15th May 2006 at 17:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Another thing in the Bear's book, :eek: the biggest bomb ever? :eek: however you may have been able to fit this thing inside a B-52, which you could not do with a Bear.
By: Flanker_man
- 15th May 2006 at 18:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Another thing in the Bear's book, :eek: the biggest bomb ever? :eek: however you may have been able to fit this thing inside a B-52, which you could not do with a Bear.
Don't forget that the Tu-95 had the same fuselage diameter as the B-29 - it being a direct lineal descendant via the Tu-85, Tu-80 and Tu-4.
By: sea vixen
- 15th May 2006 at 21:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
there must be something good about the Tu-95, they have been in service for 50 years... was the Bear used over Afghanistan. I know Backfires, Blinders and Badgers where...
By: ink
- 15th May 2006 at 22:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
there must be something good about the Tu-95, they have been in service for 50 years... was the Bear used over Afghanistan. I know Backfires, Blinders and Badgers where...
Would be nice if the BEAR and Buff were both used over the same theatre (at different times of course) but I don't think they were.
Whats going to happen when these cold war behemoths are forced out of service by their ageing airframes? I'll be most upset if airforces press modified airliners or transports into the cheap-mass-bombing role as has been suggested.
By: BIGVERN1966
- 15th May 2006 at 22:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Would be nice if the BEAR and Buff were both used over the same theatre (at different times of course) but I don't think they were.
Whats going to happen when these cold war behemoths are forced out of service by their ageing airframes? I'll be most upset if airforces press modified airliners or transports into the cheap-mass-bombing role as has been suggested.
Skybolt armed VC-10 or ALCM armed 747, anybody remember those ideas?
By: BIGVERN1966
- 15th May 2006 at 23:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yep that was some bomb. The largest man made explosion ever. 57 Megatonnes wasn't it ?
No one has mentioned how appalingly noisy the TU-95 was inside. Many cases of hearing impairment occurred among crew
I bet the ground crews suffered as well. Did you know that the Bear could outrun a Nimrod. I was reading an account in a RAFHS journal about a Nimrod encountering a couple of Bears on a Cuba run, the Nimrod started to shadow the aircraft and was listening to the usual Russian frequencies. They heard one of the crew on the first Bear to spot them call to the other Bear in Russian ' OH HO, NIMMROD' (the Russians call the western aircraft by their official western designations) and both of the bears turned up the gas taps. The Bears left the Nimrod (at full power) in the dirt.
By: Levsha
- 16th May 2006 at 00:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Perhaps you should google the Tu-114 variant of the Bear?
...the first 747... with turboprops...
Note the Tu-126 AEW is a modification of the Tu-114 airliner, which is a low wing modification of the Tu-95.
Not to mention the Tu-116...
...only way to get from the Soviet Union to Cuba in one hop.
Can’t see how the fact that the Soviets decided to develop an airliner from the basic Tu-95 design can be said to be in itself any positive indicator of the Tu-95’s basic design. A feature of Soviet aviation was always their desire to extract the maximum potential out of out both individual aircraft designs and also from actual aircraft airframes. The best example of this been the Tu-16 Badger design been further developed into the Tu-104/124 jet airliners while the actual Tu-16 airframe itself been later adapted for such roles as reconnaissance, Elint and ECM among others. Can you really develop an efficient jet airliner from a strategic jet bomber design?? Surely one could only now see it as a folly if Boeing had decided to base the 707 airliner on the B-52 design instead of developing what was to become the prototype for all of today’s large jet airliners. Only 30 or soTu-114s were built and they were all out of service by the mid 1970s. Doesn’t sound like a successful airliner design. Concorde did better than that!! I don’t believe the airframe was regarded as very successful as an AEW either. All those propeller blades spinning around must have created some interference.
Either way, the TU-95 forced the US to spend BILLIONS on air defense. It was one of the few weapons that the Russians developed that put the US into a spending spiral. Eisenhower was shocked when U-2 photos discovered that the TU-95 was the main strategic bomber and not the Bison.
Jack E. Hammond
The amount of resources that the Soviets poured into their PVO or air defence system for the defence of the whole of the Soviet Union made America’s and Canada’s comparable efforts for North America look positively amateurish. The Soviets had over 1200 intercepter aircraft, along with thousands of SAMs on force, waiting to repulse any SAC onslaught. If the Americans were somewhat scared about the BEAR, well then we would have to say that the Soviets must have been completely terrified of the BUFF.
By: Super Nimrod
- 16th May 2006 at 07:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There are known cases of the Bear out accelerating small fighters from low speeds, so the Nimrod story doesn't surprise me, those big 8 props get a lot of 'bite' in the air
By: ink
- 16th May 2006 at 10:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
or crappie stealthy flying wing, poor excuse for a aircraft type thing, or worse still, sodding pilotless [radio controlled] crap...
Absolutely right! If boys fly fighters and men fly bombers it must be something like babies flying those stealthy flashy poor excuses for planes and something even further down the food chain controlling UAVs... Mice maybe....
By: jackehammond
- 16th May 2006 at 10:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The amount of resources that the Soviets poured into their PVO or air defence system for the defence of the whole of the Soviet Union made America’s and Canada’s comparable efforts for North America look positively amateurish. The Soviets had over 1200 intercepter aircraft, along with thousands of SAMs on force, waiting to repulse any SAC onslaught. If the Americans were somewhat scared about the BEAR, well then we would have to say that the Soviets must have been completely terrified of the BUFF.
Dear Member,
I don't think it was the Buff so much as believe it or not the B-58 and the B-70. But either way Eisenhower was shocked when he learned that the Russians weren't relying on a strategic bomber for its nuclear strike and that the US had wasted a lot of money for a threat that never -- ie or was a lot smaller -- existed. It was one of the best disinformation campagins every done in history that the Russians did. Shortly after that discovery a lot of the Nike Ajax/Hercules bases started going into storage and then the air defense squadrons being transfered to the Air National Guard.
By: jackehammond
- 16th May 2006 at 10:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Don't forget that the Tu-95 had the same fuselage diameter as the B-29 - it being a direct lineal descendant via the Tu-85, Tu-80 and Tu-4.
Ken
Dear Ken,
I am not for sure if it is the TU-80 or TU-85 but one of them held the record for the largest wing-span in the world. And that is saying something considering the B-36.
Posts: 9,827
By: J Boyle - 15th May 2006 at 04:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
With all due respects to the TU-95, I'll say the B-52.
I've flown in a Stratofortress, an awesome ride 500ft above Montana
-by being a pure jet, it skipped over turboprops technologically..a more daring design at the time?
-not a bad looking airplane (before the EVS "nose bumps" anyway...)
-and finally...
it was never pointed in my direction with nukes... there is something to be said for that.... :D
Posts: 12,009
By: SOC - 15th May 2006 at 04:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That is officially the funniest thing I've heard all weekend :D
Anyway, the Tu-95MA deserves honorable mention here. It tested the baddest missile design of the Cold War...the Meteorit.
Posts: 238
By: Berlusconi - 15th May 2006 at 04:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
from the standpoint of the crews actually flying the things.. definitely the B-52.. and I'm sure the Bear crews would wish they were in those too.
By: Anonymous - 15th May 2006 at 06:29 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:23
How many planes were derived from the B-52 design?
The Tu-95/-142 is the fastest propeller driven aircraft in the world and is not that much slower than comparable jet bombers.
Who cares if the B-52 can carry a heavier load of dumb bombs... if that were important sling 250 tons of bombs in the back of an AN-225.
Posts: 3,652
By: Flanker_man - 15th May 2006 at 07:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, not only the Tu-95 - most Soviet-era - and now Russian - aircraft had/have NATO-compatible connectors.
The intention being to use NATO facilities when they swept across Europe and occupied NATO airfields !!
Ken
Posts: 295
By: jackehammond - 15th May 2006 at 12:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Dear Members,
In the high altitude and medium altitude the B-52 is the king. But at low altitude the TU-95 has the advantage big time. The B-52 can't equal the TU-95 in either range or speed at low altitude. It is actually far more payload/range efficent over the B-52 because of its engines.
TU-95s use to do reconn missions in the UK-Iceland Gap and were intercepted by RAF Lightenings and Phantoms. The TU-95s would just put the metal to the floor and the Lightenings and Phantoms had a hard time keeping up if at low altitude and to keep an eye on the TU-95s both RAF aircraft had to have tanker support if shadowing a TU-95 at low altitude.
Today, the TU-95 would by far be the more cost effective JDAM platform for use over Afghanistan on standing watch patrols. It is just far more efficent in fuel use.
Either way, the TU-95 forced the US to spend BILLIONS on air defense. It was one of the few weapons that the Russians developed that put the US into a spending spiral. Eisenhower was shocked when U-2 photos discovered that the TU-95 was the main strategic bomber and not the Bison.
Jack E. Hammond
By: Anonymous - 15th May 2006 at 17:12 Permalink - Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:29
Thanks for clarifying contrailjj and Ken. It's just that the post made it sound like the Tu-95 family might be the only ones which would have been weird.
Posts: 1,179
By: BIGVERN1966 - 15th May 2006 at 17:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Another thing in the Bear's book, :eek: the biggest bomb ever? :eek: however you may have been able to fit this thing inside a B-52, which you could not do with a Bear.
Posts: 3,652
By: Flanker_man - 15th May 2006 at 18:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Don't forget that the Tu-95 had the same fuselage diameter as the B-29 - it being a direct lineal descendant via the Tu-85, Tu-80 and Tu-4.
Ken
Posts: 1,039
By: Super Nimrod - 15th May 2006 at 20:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yep that was some bomb. The largest man made explosion ever. 57 Megatonnes wasn't it ?
No one has mentioned how appalingly noisy the TU-95 was inside. Many cases of hearing impairment occurred among crew
Posts: 599
By: sea vixen - 15th May 2006 at 21:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
there must be something good about the Tu-95, they have been in service for 50 years... was the Bear used over Afghanistan. I know Backfires, Blinders and Badgers where...
Posts: 3,269
By: ink - 15th May 2006 at 22:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Would be nice if the BEAR and Buff were both used over the same theatre (at different times of course) but I don't think they were.
Whats going to happen when these cold war behemoths are forced out of service by their ageing airframes? I'll be most upset if airforces press modified airliners or transports into the cheap-mass-bombing role as has been suggested.
Posts: 599
By: sea vixen - 15th May 2006 at 22:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
or crappie stealthy flying wing, poor excuse for a aircraft type thing, or worse still, sodding pilotless [radio controlled] crap... ;)
Posts: 1,179
By: BIGVERN1966 - 15th May 2006 at 22:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Skybolt armed VC-10 or ALCM armed 747, anybody remember those ideas?
Posts: 1,179
By: BIGVERN1966 - 15th May 2006 at 23:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I bet the ground crews suffered as well. Did you know that the Bear could outrun a Nimrod. I was reading an account in a RAFHS journal about a Nimrod encountering a couple of Bears on a Cuba run, the Nimrod started to shadow the aircraft and was listening to the usual Russian frequencies. They heard one of the crew on the first Bear to spot them call to the other Bear in Russian ' OH HO, NIMMROD' (the Russians call the western aircraft by their official western designations) and both of the bears turned up the gas taps. The Bears left the Nimrod (at full power) in the dirt.
Posts: 2,814
By: Levsha - 16th May 2006 at 00:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Can’t see how the fact that the Soviets decided to develop an airliner from the basic Tu-95 design can be said to be in itself any positive indicator of the Tu-95’s basic design. A feature of Soviet aviation was always their desire to extract the maximum potential out of out both individual aircraft designs and also from actual aircraft airframes. The best example of this been the Tu-16 Badger design been further developed into the Tu-104/124 jet airliners while the actual Tu-16 airframe itself been later adapted for such roles as reconnaissance, Elint and ECM among others. Can you really develop an efficient jet airliner from a strategic jet bomber design?? Surely one could only now see it as a folly if Boeing had decided to base the 707 airliner on the B-52 design instead of developing what was to become the prototype for all of today’s large jet airliners. Only 30 or soTu-114s were built and they were all out of service by the mid 1970s. Doesn’t sound like a successful airliner design. Concorde did better than that!! I don’t believe the airframe was regarded as very successful as an AEW either. All those propeller blades spinning around must have created some interference.
The amount of resources that the Soviets poured into their PVO or air defence system for the defence of the whole of the Soviet Union made America’s and Canada’s comparable efforts for North America look positively amateurish. The Soviets had over 1200 intercepter aircraft, along with thousands of SAMs on force, waiting to repulse any SAC onslaught. If the Americans were somewhat scared about the BEAR, well then we would have to say that the Soviets must have been completely terrified of the BUFF.
Posts: 1,039
By: Super Nimrod - 16th May 2006 at 07:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There are known cases of the Bear out accelerating small fighters from low speeds, so the Nimrod story doesn't surprise me, those big 8 props get a lot of 'bite' in the air
Posts: 3,269
By: ink - 16th May 2006 at 10:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Absolutely right! If boys fly fighters and men fly bombers it must be something like babies flying those stealthy flashy poor excuses for planes and something even further down the food chain controlling UAVs... Mice maybe....
Posts: 295
By: jackehammond - 16th May 2006 at 10:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Dear Member,
I don't think it was the Buff so much as believe it or not the B-58 and the B-70. But either way Eisenhower was shocked when he learned that the Russians weren't relying on a strategic bomber for its nuclear strike and that the US had wasted a lot of money for a threat that never -- ie or was a lot smaller -- existed. It was one of the best disinformation campagins every done in history that the Russians did. Shortly after that discovery a lot of the Nike Ajax/Hercules bases started going into storage and then the air defense squadrons being transfered to the Air National Guard.
Jack E. Hammond
Posts: 295
By: jackehammond - 16th May 2006 at 10:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Dear Ken,
I am not for sure if it is the TU-80 or TU-85 but one of them held the record for the largest wing-span in the world. And that is saying something considering the B-36.
Jack E. Hammond