Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Share
    avatar
    Sukhoi37_Terminator

    Posts : 24
    Points : 34
    Join date : 2009-09-22
    Age : 28
    Location : Saint Petersburg

    Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  Sukhoi37_Terminator on Thu Nov 12, 2009 12:13 pm

    http://en.rian.ru/russia/20091112/156812295.html


    MOSCOW, November 12 (RIA Novosti) -- Two Russian Tu-95 Bear strategic bombers that carried out a routine patrol flight over the Pacific Ocean were shadowed by 'regular' NATO fighters, the Defense Ministry said on Thursday.
    It said the bombers had spent over 15 hours in flight on Wednesday and were shadowed by two NATO F-15 Eagle fighters.
    A similar patrol mission on September 29 was shadowed by an F-22 Raptor that uses stealth technology, reportedly the first time the world's only fifth-generation fighter aircraft was sent along to keep an eye on the Russians.
    Russian strategic bombers resumed patrol flights over the Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic oceans in August 2007, following an order from then-president Vladimir Putin, and are usually shadowed by less sophisticated NATO aircraft.
    All flights by Russian aircraft are performed in strict compliance with international law on the use of airspace over neutral waters, without intruding in the airspace of other states, the ministry said.
    avatar
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1162
    Points : 2050
    Join date : 2009-07-20
    Age : 27
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Russian bombers fly near U.S. Aleutian Islands during Pacific patrol

    Post  Russian Patriot on Wed Mar 24, 2010 5:13 pm

    Russian bombers fly near U.S. Aleutian Islands during Pacific patrol

    RIA Novosti

    24/03/201019:16

    MOSCOW, March 24 (RIA Novosti) - Two Russian Tu-95MS Bear strategic bombers have carried out a 15-hour routine patrol mission over the Pacific, including near the U.S. Aleutian Islands, an Air Force spokesman said on Wednesday.

    "The Tu-95MS bombers left the Ukrainka air base [in the Amur region in Russia's Far East] on March 24 and successfully completed the air patrol mission," Lt. Col. Vladimir Drik said.

    "The flight took place in the region of the Aleutian Islands," he added.

    The strategic bombers practiced various types of flight drills, including in-flight refueling, he also said.

    Earlier this month, the commander of U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command Air Force Gen. Victor E. Renuart told the Senate Armed Services Committee that “We’ve had a couple instances in the past year where Russian planes flew too close to the Aleutian Islands.”

    However, he also said the planes were not a threat.

    Russian strategic bombers resumed patrol flights over the Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic oceans in August 2007, following an order from then-President Vladimir Putin.

    All flights by Russian aircraft are performed in strict compliance with international law on the use of airspace over neutral waters, without intruding in the airspace of other states.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2010/russia-100324-rianovosti01.htm


    Last edited by Russian Patriot on Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1162
    Points : 2050
    Join date : 2009-07-20
    Age : 27
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Russian Air Force denies it violated British airspace

    Post  Russian Patriot on Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:53 pm

    Russian Air Force denies it violated British airspace

    RIA Novosti

    25/03/201020:46

    MOSCOW/LONDON, March 25 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's Air Force has denied claims by Britain that Russian Tu-160 Blackjack strategic bombers violated UK airspace on March 10.

    The U.K. Defense Ministry said on Thursday that two RAF Tornado F3 fighters took off on alert after the Russian bombers allegedly intruded the country's airspace northwest of Scotland. The statement said the planes accompanied the Russian bombers until they left British airspace.

    "Tu-160 strategic bombers did indeed make routine flights over the Arctic and Atlantic oceans on March 10, but there were no airspace violations," Russian Air Force spokesman Lt. Col. Vladimir Drik told RIA Novosti.

    Drik added that the Russian Air Force had distributed an official statement on March 12, which said that two Russian Tu-160s had carried out an 11-hour routine patrol mission over the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans and were shadowed by four NATO fighters - two NATO F-16 Fighting Falcons of the Norwegian Air Force and two RAF Tornados.

    "All flights of Air Force aircraft were and are fulfilled in strict compliance with the international rules on the use of airspace over neutral waters, without violation of other states' borders," Drik said.

    A similar patrol mission in September 2009 was shadowed by an F-22 Raptor, reportedly the first time the world's only fifth-generation fighter aircraft, which uses stealth technology, was sent out to keep an eye on Russian planes.

    Russian strategic bombers resumed patrol flights over the Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic oceans in August 2007, following an order from then-President Vladimir Putin, and are usually shadowed by less sophisticated NATO aircraft.

    Russia has yet to develop a fifth-generation fighter and has just started testing a prototype, known as the T-50, which is not expected to enter service until 2015. A second U.S. fifth-generation fighter, the F-35 Lightning II, is due to enter service with the U.S. Marine Corps in 2012.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2010/russia-100325-rianovosti01.htm


    Last edited by Russian Patriot on Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2236
    Points : 3118
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  Vladimir79 on Thu Mar 25, 2010 9:44 pm

    I'm more inclined to believe RAF. It is well known Russian bombers try to test air defences. Tu-160s defeated their defences the last time, looks like RAF wasn't caught asleep now.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7176
    Points : 7456
    Join date : 2009-08-05
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  sepheronx on Fri Mar 26, 2010 2:01 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:I'm more inclined to believe RAF. It is well known Russian bombers try to test air defences. Tu-160s defeated their defences the last time, looks like RAF wasn't caught asleep now.

    It was something like 80KM within airspace. This time it is 246km (give or take a few). But even then, at that range, UK would have been destroyed by the onboard weapons, that would have fired at around 2-5000KM away.
    avatar
    Farhad Gulemov

    Posts : 68
    Points : 80
    Join date : 2010-03-08
    Age : 54
    Location : Imperial Homeland

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  Farhad Gulemov on Fri Mar 26, 2010 2:49 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote:I'm more inclined to believe RAF. It is well known Russian bombers try to test air defences. Tu-160s defeated their defences the last time, looks like RAF wasn't caught asleep now.

    The pictures which were shown by the British seemed to have been taken at high altitude but if they had wanted to screw the Brits they would have made a high speed low altitude approach and then they would have popped up in a typical HI-LO-HI mission profile, I think. I also betcha that by the time the Brits showed up the Blackjacks could have evaded them but decided to stay and "show the flag".

    I don't buy this "violation of airspace' business. I tend to think that this is yet another chapter in the long anti-Russian propaganda campaign by the Brits who have now been at it since 2000 or so...

    And the Russians are just saying "yeah - we can reach you anytime we want. Good for them! russia
    avatar
    milky_candy_sugar

    Posts : 396
    Points : 515
    Join date : 2009-10-30
    Age : 24
    Location : Switzerland

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  milky_candy_sugar on Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:00 am

    Pictures here - by British MoD







    _________________
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 802
    Points : 882
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 30
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  Stealthflanker on Sun Mar 28, 2010 7:34 am

    good planes Very Happy

    i really love those Tu-160's

    hmm anyway yeah i kinda believe the RAF's
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2236
    Points : 3118
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  Vladimir79 on Thu Apr 08, 2010 1:05 am

    Russia may renounce the development of a new bomber

    RIA Novosti, April 6. The modernized strategic bombers Tu-160 can replace the development of promising new set of long-range aviation, said Tuesday by the deputy defense minister for armament Vladimir Popovkin.

    "The Americans have decided to extend the resource B-52 to 70 years. We are not richer than them," - he said, replying to a question whether there was work to modernize the Tu-160 or the development of a promising new set of long-range aviation.

    RIA Novosti
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17957
    Points : 18531
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:02 am

    I have read that the Bear is much cheaper to operate than the Blackjack.

    I wonder if they are worried that the new bomber might turn into a Russian B-2 that is so expensive even the US can only afford 20.

    I would hope that Russian designers could come up with something that is more capable yet does not cost exponentially more than those already in service.

    Going for hypersonic stealthy would certainly break the bank, but I think there is an opportunity to create a new modern but efficient bomber able to meet the various requirements of strategic cruise missile carrier and theatre heavy bomber and maybe even long range Maritime Patrol aircraft, and inflight refuelling tanker and perhaps even AWACS.

    So far the solutions tried have been to go multinational with expensive designs like the F-35.
    Perhaps the ideal solution is to make a design that can be used with minimal modification for a wide range of purposes using largely the same components.

    Or perhaps I am just full of it. Surprised
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 802
    Points : 882
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 30
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  Stealthflanker on Thu Apr 08, 2010 10:13 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Perhaps the ideal solution is to make a design that can be used with minimal modification for a wide range of purposes using largely the same components.

    Or perhaps I am just full of it. Surprised

    I agree with this.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17957
    Points : 18531
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:55 pm

    You agree that I am full of it? Twisted Evil Twisted Evil pirat
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 802
    Points : 882
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 30
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  Stealthflanker on Fri Apr 09, 2010 6:49 am

    GarryB wrote:You agree that I am full of it? Twisted Evil Twisted Evil pirat

    I Agree that your concept is very good .. having an aircraft that can be adapted to other roles with minimum modification . and able to "share" parts between each variants.. pretty much like F-111B and F-111A.

    imagine a version of Tu-160 which capable of adapted with minimum modification into a Space ship launcher role (like Burlak Diana)..while retaining capability to carry cruise missiles Very Happy
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17957
    Points : 18531
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:38 pm

    I thought the proposed interceptor and jammer models of the Tu-160 that never got off the drawing board looked cool.

    Imagine the size of radar that could be fitted in the nose of the Tu-160, with R-37s in the rotary internal bays.

    Just off the top of my head the R-37 should be about the same size as the Kh-15 Kickback so the Tu-160 should be able to carry 24 missiles internally and be capable of supersonic sprints with a flight radius of 12,000km or so.
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5660
    Points : 6303
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  Viktor on Sat Apr 10, 2010 9:47 am

    GarryB wrote:I thought the proposed interceptor and jammer models of the Tu-160 that never got off the drawing board looked cool.

    Imagine the size of radar that could be fitted in the nose of the Tu-160, with R-37s in the rotary internal bays.

    Just off the top of my head the R-37 should be about the same size as the Kh-15 Kickback so the Tu-160 should be able to carry 24 missiles internally and be capable of supersonic sprints with a flight radius of 12,000km or so.

    I allways liked the idea of Tu-22M3 being fitted with AESA radar an rotary K-100 missiles besides some Kh-22M.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17957
    Points : 18531
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 11, 2010 12:46 am

    Yes.

    Keep the crew of 4 and put a huge AESA radar in the nose, modify the internal rotary weapon rack to carry long missiles plus with 4 external load bearing points for weapons should allow quite a few weapons to be carried.

    Half the number of engines and probably cheaper to operate and the chance of having lots of spare airframes is rather better than with the Blackjack due to the numbers in service.

    If the changes are made permanent and the air to ground capacity is completely removed then the inflight refuelling capability could be reinstated too.

    The belly could be reconfigured to look like the belly of the Mig-31M for semi conformal carriage of large AAMs like R-37 and other proposed weapons.
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 802
    Points : 882
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 30
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  Stealthflanker on Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:59 pm

    there were also concept of "B-1R" in US serving pretty much same purpose as Counter air variant of Tu-160's.

    However i wonder why neither of these concept came into materialization
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2236
    Points : 3118
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:58 pm

    I think the Tu-160 is good for what we need. Slap on a RAM coating, LO the outlets, and an engine upgrade will do it just fine. Remember its primary role is a standoff nuclear carrier. With a 3000km missile range, it doesn't have to penetrate at all. The Su-34 is going to be the mainstay of tactical bombing, add aerial refuelling and it can be used in a strategic role. We can use PAK FA for preliminary strike missions.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17957
    Points : 18531
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 13, 2010 3:22 am

    However i wonder why neither of these concept came into materialization

    Most likely cost really. The Mig-31 is smaller and shorter ranged, but you actually get better coverage with a lot of smaller interceptors than you do with a couple of big ones.

    The Tu-160 is a very expensive aircraft.


    I think the Tu-160 is good for what we need.

    I agree but lots of parts for it were made in the Ukraine.
    I have been told that major structural components needed for the swing wing were made in the Ukraine and it would not be so easy or cheap to make a lot more.
    The 15-16 you have is a very small force for just one type.

    They are actually making more Ka-50 helicopters even though the Mi-28N won the competition for replacement helo for the Hind because the one and a half dozen or so Ka-50s made in the mid 1990s is not a viable force. They are also making Ka-52s but these seem to be for the heavy recon role so they are really replacing the Mi-2s in service in the recon role.

    Slap on a RAM coating, LO the outlets, and an engine upgrade will do it just fine.

    Actually the Tu-160 was the first Soviet aircraft that took into account of radar cross section. It already has RAM coating and although the engine intakes are not S shaped to hide the front engine fan blades they have actually applied RAM material to the front fan blades to reduce their radar return.
    The Tu-160 is said to have a RCS similar to the much smaller B-1B, which in itself is impressive because the B-1B had lots of RCS measures applied.

    Remember its primary role is a standoff nuclear carrier. With a 3000km missile range, it doesn't have to penetrate at all.

    Quite true and the new missile it is carrying is the Kh-102 with a range of 5,000km.
    Russia and the Soviet Union only have one heavy bomber in the form of the Tu-22M3, with the Tu-95 and the Tu-160s being cruise missile carriers.

    All three aircraft however have been going through upgrades to make them all guided air to ground weapon capable for precision attacks in all weathers day and night.

    The Su-34 is going to be the mainstay of tactical bombing, add aerial refuelling and it can be used in a strategic role.

    When it was being developed it was described as a replacement for the Su-24, the Tu-16, and the Tu-22M3 on its shorter missions.

    There is something to be said however for the Tu-22M3, which can carry an enormous load over shorter theatre mission ranges. 24 tons of guided weapons over a mission radius of over 2,000km would be impressive for any aircraft. The fact that 24 tons of weapons means reduced fuel also means that if you restore inflight refuelling you can actually increase that flight radius by topping up on the fuel you off loaded to get airborne with the extra weight.

    More than that the Tu-160 and Tu-22M3 are beautiful looking aircraft.

    But I am biased
    cheers
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2236
    Points : 3118
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:04 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    I agree but lots of parts for it were made in the Ukraine.
    I have been told that major structural components needed for the swing wing were made in the Ukraine and it would not be so easy or cheap to make a lot more.
    The 15-16 you have is a very small force for just one type.

    Talk has been made of starting up production again at Kazan to bring the number to 30.

    http://www.kommersant.com/p-11537/r_500/Tu-160_resume/

    They are actually making more Ka-50 helicopters even though the Mi-28N won the competition for replacement helo for the Hind because the one and a half dozen or so Ka-50s made in the mid 1990s is not a viable force. They are also making Ka-52s but these seem to be for the heavy recon role so they are really replacing the Mi-2s in service in the recon role.

    Ka-50 production is ended once the already signed orders are finished. 30 Ka-52 will be produced to fill special operations roles. Mi-28N is the main attack helo of the VVS.

    Actually the Tu-160 was the first Soviet aircraft that took into account of radar cross section. It already has RAM coating and although the engine intakes are not S shaped to hide the front engine fan blades they have actually applied RAM material to the front fan blades to reduce their radar return.
    The Tu-160 is said to have a RCS similar to the much smaller B-1B, which in itself is impressive because the B-1B had lots of RCS measures applied.

    Tu-160 was developed long before the advent of Russian RAM coatings. This is a new thing only going on the Su-35BM currently in production. Tu-160 was not incorporated stealth technology...


    As noted Zhikharev, stealth technology planned for the first time to apply for Tu-160. The design of the aircraft used by new composite materials, as well as the principle was applied to the angles of refraction of reflection of radar beams. According to the commander, for this reason that the effective reflecting surface as a measure of invisibility from the Tu-160 would be much smaller than other aircraft.

    However, as recalled by Anatoly Zhikharev, work to improve the aircraft was brought to the end, because the Tu-160 was designed in the 70-ies. First vehicles entered service in the Russian army only in 1987, when the industry was unable to fully realize stealth technology.

    http://www.newsru.com/russia/22dec2009/stels.html


    The new missile it is carrying is the Kh-102 with a range of 5,000km.

    Kh-101 was tested a decade ago but came to naught. Its seeker technology was incorporated into Kh-555 which is now the mainstay LACM of the VVS. Kh-55 still used for nuclear.


    Russia and the Soviet Union only have one heavy bomber in the form of the Tu-22M3, with the Tu-95 and the Tu-160s being cruise missile carriers.

    Tu-95 and Tu-160 also carry bombs. The modernisation incorporates this into the mission.

    All three aircraft however have been going through upgrades to make them all guided air to ground weapon capable for precision attacks in all weathers day and night.

    Tu-22M3 is getting the bombing computer added to the Su-24SM, but not smart munitions. As the Su-34 comes online they will be withdrawn from service.

    There is something to be said however for the Tu-22M3, which can carry an enormous load over shorter theatre mission ranges. 24 tons of guided weapons over a mission radius of over 2,000km would be impressive for any aircraft. The fact that 24 tons of weapons means reduced fuel also means that if you restore inflight refuelling you can actually increase that flight radius by topping up on the fuel you off loaded to get airborne with the extra weight.

    Tu-22M3 entered service in the early eighties and production ended in 1986. Its production facilities are long gone and no one wants to restart its production. As demonstrated over Georgia, it is highly susceptible to enemy fire so no one in command wants to bring it back as a bomber. Its best role is as a naval strike, it is the fear of all planners trying to keep naval parity. Hopefully it will serve long in this role until 2030.

    More than that the Tu-160 and Tu-22M3 are beautiful looking aircraft.

    Nothing is more beautiful to watch than the White Swan floating over Red Square.
    avatar
    solo.13mmfmj

    Posts : 115
    Points : 138
    Join date : 2010-04-15

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  solo.13mmfmj on Fri Apr 16, 2010 6:17 pm

    Why didn't the RAF destroy the aircraft?If they violatet UK air space!
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17957
    Points : 18531
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:06 pm

    They didn't violate UK airspace, they flew through international airspace that the UK expects "enemy bombers" to use so it is "watched" airspace.
    If the Russian bombers had flown out of international airspace and into UK airspace the UK interceptors would have demanded the aircraft land or be shot down.
    Just like what happened over Soviet airspace during the cold war.
    Same rules apply.
    avatar
    USAF

    Posts : 13
    Points : 26
    Join date : 2010-06-03
    Location : Phoenix Arizona

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  USAF on Thu Jun 03, 2010 3:43 am

    Interesting. The Tu-95 Bombers seem to have had many different airframes shadow them throughout the years. From the F-100 in the late 1950's to the F-22 of today. I am certain there are Tu-95 pilots who had fathers that flew Tu-95's. I have never seen one, I assume the only place I could see one would be at the Monino Air Museum.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17957
    Points : 18531
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 03, 2010 5:11 am

    Technically the Tu-95s no longer exist.
    In the mid 1970s the Tu-95 had a big redesign program that reduced drag and introduced new wings etc and the new aircraft was called the Tu-142.
    All the current Bears in service were made between 1985 and 1995 and are actually all Tu-142s, but they are called Tu-95s for the purposes of the START treaties and the SALT treaties.
    Many of Americas F-16s and F-15s are actually older build aircraft than the Bears they are intercepting.

    Of course the issue is often blurred because in addition to the Tu-95MS Bears flying around the place there are also Tu-142 Bear maritime recon aircraft also flying around the place. When a western news agency issues a report about a Bear bomber buzzing a US carrier it is often shown by the photo used that the aircraft is not a Bear bomber, but a Bear MPA (maritime patrol aircraft).

    The Soviet/Russian current build Bears are not bombers anyway, their primary armament is cruise missiles so they are actually cruise missile carriers in two models, the Tu-95MS10 and the Tu-95MS16, which carry 10 or 16 subsonic land attack cruise missiles respectively.

    The US B-52s on the other hand were produced from the 1950s and often the aircraft of today were flown by the pilots father too.

    The Bear is often mistaken for a piston powered aircraft straight from WWII.
    It is in fact a turboprop, which means it is a jet that uses a jet engine design to power propellers to drive the aircraft.
    It is the worlds fastest propeller driven aircraft and uses a very coarse propeller pitch to fly very fast. Western observers made very inaccurate assumptions about its performance because they calculated with a normal pitch propeller that the blade tips of the large 6m propellers would be supersonic at max speed, which increases drag and noise and reduces thrust.
    The aircraft actually has constant speed props that remain subsonic and generate a lot more thrust.
    At high altitude the B-52 is only about 50km/h faster despite being a turbojet powered aircaft, and a lower altitudes the Bear is actually faster than the B-52.
    avatar
    USAF

    Posts : 13
    Points : 26
    Join date : 2010-06-03
    Location : Phoenix Arizona

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  USAF on Fri Jun 04, 2010 2:41 am

    Maybe they wanted to stop by for a little R&R

    Sponsored content

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun May 27, 2018 11:59 pm