Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tu-95 vs B-52

    Share

    smerch24
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 7
    Points : 12
    Join date : 2014-10-24
    Location : london

    Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  smerch24 on Tue Oct 28, 2014 5:32 pm

    This is my first thread and not shying from controversy Razz

    This is quite a cliche topic, iam sure there has been a lot of comparisons made before in various forums, but lets start a fresh and honest discussion and compare these two legendary aircraft's.

    Without wanting to invite unnecessary jingoism or even trying to imply one is much better than the other, lets compare the strengths and weaknesses of these aircraft's from the day they were introduced to their latest variants (B-52H and Tu-95MS)

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-05
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Oct 28, 2014 6:06 pm

    Both are great planes that make much more sense operationally than B2 or Tu-160.

    Thats my opinion.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  GarryB on Wed Oct 29, 2014 3:38 am

    You are comparing two different aircraft optimised for two very different missions.

    The B-52 is an 8 engined bomber.

    The Tu-95 is a 4 engined cruise missile carrier.

    Up until recently the Bear has been strategic bomber only, while the B-52 has been used quite often as a heavy bomber.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    smerch24
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 7
    Points : 12
    Join date : 2014-10-24
    Location : london

    Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  smerch24 on Wed Oct 29, 2014 10:03 am

    I think the B-52 has a better conventional attack capability in terms of carpet bombing, mainly due to the vietnam war. A lot of US aircraft prior to the war had little or no conventional attack capability like the F-105, only operational demand made the USAF upgrade a lot of there fleet into "bomb trucks"

    The Tu-95 never saw such combat, and therefor there was no need to convert it into a bomb truck. The US saw the B-52 as a tool for global "real politik" i guess, it was a political tool after the Vietnam war, the Tu-95 on the other hand i think had more specialized variants from information relay aicraft, ASW and maritime patrol aircraft, electronic warfare, and of course carrier of cruise missiles. The Tu-142 i think is a better maritime aircraft than the B-52 considering its ability to carry bigger and faster anti ship cruise missiles like the KH-22

    Another strong advantage of the Bear is its ability to operate from less than ideal conditions. Without going too much into speculations of what WW3 would look like, its fair to say that operating conditions would be less than ideal. The Tu-95 could potentially shine there, it does not need a massive pristine clean airfield like the B-52 demands to operate in. It can takeoff from very rough airfields or even totally unpaved fields. In comparison the B-52s landing gear and ground clearance doesn't allow it to operate from such conditions. The Tu-95 also widely renowned by its ground crew of being really easy to maintain for an aircraft of such size, four turboprop engines is a lot easier to maintain than 8 highly stressed small turbojet (later turbofans of course). In very harsh operating conditions, i think its safe to say Tu-95 will still be taking off, and the B-52 would be inoperable. Soviet aircrafts (on the most part) in general had this characteristics, its mainly from their experience in WW2 as the fronts they fought in where in their own territories (most of the time), they didn't have the luxury as say the US army air force who fought far away from their lands and operated (relatively) in far safer airfields in the pacific and UK that where generally far out of reach of enemy counterattack. This made the Soviets design equipment that can generally operate in conditions that are far less than ideal in comparison to their US counterpart.



    Giulio
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 144
    Points : 167
    Join date : 2013-10-29
    Location : Italy

    Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  Giulio on Wed Oct 29, 2014 6:51 pm

    I think the strategic bombers need always well paved runways. A fully loaded Tu-95 (fuel and weapons) I don't think that it can take off from a not prepared runway. If there is snow, the snow should be compressed with rollers, or washed away.
    The strategic bombers like B-52 and Tu-95 need very long runways and wide connections; runways much longer than those of the civil aviation. (With the Tu-114, as far as I know, only seven civil airports in the Soviet Union could accept it in their runways, because the Tu-114 was derived from a strategic bomber).
    The Russian aircrafts are very strong and resistant, but the big landing gear of the Tu-95 is mainly for the propeller separation from the ground, and the Tu-95 propellers are very big ... The turning radius of the Tu-95 on the ground isn't as good as that of a Tu-154, so it needs appropriate connections in a big airport.
    In this fact, the B-52 has an advantage due to its particular landing gear, because the B-52 can turn on the ground like a "crab", moving to a side, by turning its main landing gear. (And the B-52 can also land like a "crab" and with lateral wind, thanks its particular landing gear).
    The B-52 can carry 30 tons of bombs, the Tu-95 the half: this because they have different duties. In essence, I think the Tu-95 was a nuclear attacker, not a conventional bomber, so, as has already written Garry, the Tu-95 is a nuclear missile carrier.
    For me it is interesting to note that the Tu-95 has only four engines, but actually it has eight propellers. Now, since a propeller is a device that converts power in thrust, I could say that the Tu-95 has "eight engines". Note then that the Tu-95 is the only one turboprop that I know to have a swept wing, very similar to the B-52. To convert power in thrust is hard for me, because it needs to know the power provided by engines at a certain altitude and speed, but I bet that the power installed on a B-52 is not very different from that of a Tu-95.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  GarryB on Thu Oct 30, 2014 3:29 am

    The Tu-95 is the worlds fastest propeller driven aircraft and is actually the only one that requires a swept wing.

    The previous models of the Bear I would agree that the B-52 was the better bomber... simply by default, but with the new upgrades the Bear will be able to deliver a wide range of guided air to ground munitions and be every bit as good as the B-52 in terms of bombing performance.

    keep in mind that the Tu-22M3 can carry 69 FAB-250 bombs which matches the performance of the B-52 with conventional bombs AFAIK.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    smerch24
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 7
    Points : 12
    Join date : 2014-10-24
    Location : london

    Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  smerch24 on Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:01 am

    The takeoff distance for beats depends on variants, its as short as 1800m for Tu-95MR, but the MS versions are around 2540m. I think a B-52H max takeoff distance is 2900m in comparison.

    I think these figures are at max takeoff weight.


    Giulio
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 144
    Points : 167
    Join date : 2013-10-29
    Location : Italy

    Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  Giulio on Fri Oct 31, 2014 3:46 am

    The calculation of the length of the runway for takeoff is not so simple, varies depending on many factors, including meteorologicals. Please note that the performance tables are always related to a new aircraft factory.
    In addition, the runway must also include a section suitable to stop the plane in the event of an emergency with take off abandon.
    It should then see, for example, if the lengths from you posted refer to the distance of "rolling", i.e. how many meters need to disconnect the wheels from the ground, or the distance required to disconnect the wheels from the ground and pass a 15 m. tree.
    Near my house there was, at the time of the Cold War, a small military airport (for beautiful sections of F-104s), which has now become civil. It has a single runway. Once it was almost five kilometers long, because it was built also for the B-52, now in practice she have halved and is 3000 m. long.

    Giulio
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 144
    Points : 167
    Join date : 2013-10-29
    Location : Italy

    Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  Giulio on Fri Oct 31, 2014 12:34 pm

    The B-52 can start up its engine in emergency by an explosive cartridge inserted near the turbine. The trigger is electric.
    In Italy, also the FIAT G-91R and T had a cartridge start. In case of fail of the cartridge, it needed two things: sandpaper and a broomstick. A real G-91 pilot says this story. In the 80s, in Ramstein, Germany, they had gone for an exercise with four G-91T (two seat trainer). At the moment to go back at home, the first three G-91 start without problems, but the fourth not. The cartridge explodes, but the engine nothing.
    The American pilots of the F-16 of the base in the meantime started to gather on the runway borders. The Italian pilot gets down from G91 cockpit, extracts the cartridge, scratches and cleans the electric contacts with the sandpaper, puts a new cartridge and re-goes back in the cockpit: nothing. The Americans start to laughing openly. The Italian pilot descends from the cockpit for three times, but the engine does not start. So, as the flight manual says, if the cartridges fail, the most likely thing is that the bearing balls of the turbine are freeze, so, the G-91 pilot opens the gun compartment and extracts the broomstick, goes behind the G-91 and he slips in the jet exhaust and with the broomstick turns manually the turbine elements. The Americans die laughing. Then he puts a new cartridge, re-goes in the cockpit and, this time, the G-91 starts without problems.

    Captbilly
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 5
    Points : 7
    Join date : 2015-07-06

    Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  Captbilly on Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:05 pm

    I flew the B-52G and H back in the 1980s. I think the question of whether the B-52 or tu-95 is better is essentially irrelevant. In todays world both aircraft are nothing but transportation systems for bombs and missiles. Neither aircraft would stand a chance against any serious air defense system or fighter aircraft. Either aircraft could be replaced by a slightly modified airliner, with greatly reduced cost of operation.

    If we were to look a just aircraft performance the clear winner, in almost every catagory, would be the B-52H. The B-52 is faster, has longer range, higher cruise speed, higher ceiling, can carry a bigger load, higher climb rate and has more modern electronics. In 1980 the B-52 may have even had a chance of penetrating well defended airspace, though the Tu-95 would not (the bear had extremely limited ability to fly low level, no FLIR or terrain avoidance radar), but today either plane would be found and shot down by the first fighter to get within 100 miles of it.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-05
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  sepheronx on Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:08 pm

    Captbilly wrote:I flew the B-52G and H back in the 1980s.  I think the question of whether the B-52 or tu-95 is better is essentially irrelevant.  In todays world both aircraft are nothing but transportation systems for bombs and missiles.  Neither aircraft would stand a chance against any serious air defense system or fighter aircraft.  Either aircraft could be replaced by a slightly modified airliner, with greatly reduced cost of operation.

    If we were to look a just aircraft performance the clear winner, in almost every catagory, would be the B-52H.  The B-52 is faster, has longer range, higher cruise speed, higher ceiling, can carry a bigger load, higher climb rate and has more modern electronics.  In 1980 the B-52 may have even had a chance of penetrating well defended airspace, though the Tu-95 would not (the bear had extremely limited ability to fly low level, no FLIR or terrain avoidance radar), but today either plane would be found and shot down by the first fighter to get within 100 miles of it.

    It mainly depends on the weapons onboard. The B-52H, can it carry cruise missiles? The Bear can, and it carries missiles that have launch ranges of up to and over 5K km's. Now you are correct in saying that they would easily be taken down, but it all depends on how they are used. B-52's I have seen mostly are in enemy territory dropping bombs en mass. Tu-95's mission is different as both that and Tu-160 are missile carriers.

    Captbilly
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 5
    Points : 7
    Join date : 2015-07-06

    Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  Captbilly on Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:15 pm

    Yes the B-52H does carry cruis missiles. We did the necessary mods to carry cruise missiles in the late 80s and had planes on alert with 8 cruise missiles carried internally and another 18 externally.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-05
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  sepheronx on Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:20 pm

    Captbilly wrote:Yes the B-52H does carry cruis missiles.  We did the necessary mods to carry cruise missiles in the late 80s and had planes on alert with 8 cruise missiles carried internally and another 18 externally.

    OK fair enough.

    Yeah, in today's mil, both may be good for launching their cruise missiles and go back, after that, not much else. Well, besides against countries with weak or non existent airdefence systems and aircrafts.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jul 07, 2015 3:04 am

    Hi CptBilly, it is a forum rule that a members first post should be an introduction in rules and introductions section.

    While you are there please have a read through the rules so you have an idea what to expect... you can also have a read through a few introductions if you like to get an idea of who you are talking to. You are not obliged to post any personal information you don't want to post, but letting us know a bit about you and your interests can lead to discussions with likeminded people with similar interests.

    Please create your own thread in the introductions section. Smile

    Regarding this thread, I agree the comparison is totally absurd as the planes are fundamentally different... like trying to compare a Basketball team with a Soccer team.

    The B-52 is a strategic and theatre bomber designed as a deterrent with nuclear weapons and a support weapon for engagements against small countries with conventional weapons.

    The Tu-95 is a strategic aircraft only, and it is not a bomber, it is a cruise missile carrier and is not for expanding the empire or controlling the natives.

    The Tu-95MS16 could easily perform its primary mission today, because the externally mounted missiles are now Kh-101s which allow a standoff range of 5,000km... very few air defence networks have that sort of a reach 5 hours after being struck by SLBMs and ICBMs.

    After a nuclear strike the B-52s would probably get through as well, but their problem is that they are not just strategic bombers, they are theatre bombers as well... a role they should be more or less capable of... you wouldn't send them in until the major SAMs have been dealt with, but the obvious problem is that the proliferation of SAMs like Pantsir that can reach high targets and low targets while being small and mobile enough to play hide and seek complicates things for large slow bombers.

    Either aircraft could be replaced by a slightly modified airliner, with greatly reduced cost of operation.

    Actually the real problem for both aircraft would be engines... fit both aircraft with high bypass modern jet engines and the operational costs would drop... the Tu-95 had an aerodynamics upgrade in the 1980s to the Tu-142 specification and its flight performance is perfectly adequate.

    I think a wing upgrade for the Buff and most importantly modern high bypass jet engines and its performance would slightly improve and its fuel consumption would plummet.

    If we were to look a just aircraft performance the clear winner, in almost every catagory, would be the B-52H. The B-52 is faster, has longer range, higher cruise speed, higher ceiling, can carry a bigger load, higher climb rate and has more modern electronics.

    The current model Tu-95s are all Tu-142 designs and therefore are 1980s vintage.. much younger than any model B-52, and currently getting a total overhaul and electronics upgrade... and the Bear was always faster at low altitude...

    In 1980 the B-52 may have even had a chance of penetrating well defended airspace, though the Tu-95 would not (the bear had extremely limited ability to fly low level, no FLIR or terrain avoidance radar)

    Had no... because it was a cruise missile carrier... why waste fuel at low altitude?

    Also the Bear has several variants in service including a Maritime patrol aircraft, a civil airliner and an AEW aircraft...

    but today either plane would be found and shot down by the first fighter to get within 100 miles of it.

    And one of those planes would never get within 1,000km of its targets airspace...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Captbilly
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 5
    Points : 7
    Join date : 2015-07-06

    Some data points.

    Post  Captbilly on Sun Apr 10, 2016 4:01 am

    GarryB wrote:Hi CptBilly, it is a forum rule that a members first post should be an introduction in rules and introductions section.

    While you are there please have a read through the rules so you have an idea what to expect... you can also have a read through a few introductions if you like to get an idea of who you are talking to. You are not obliged to post any personal information you don't want to post, but letting us know a bit about you and your interests can lead to discussions with likeminded people with similar interests.

    Please create your own thread in the introductions section. Smile

    Regarding this thread, I agree the comparison is totally absurd as the planes are fundamentally different... like trying to compare a Basketball team with a Soccer team.

    The B-52 is a strategic and theatre bomber designed as a deterrent with nuclear weapons and a support weapon for engagements against small countries with conventional weapons.
    B-52 was not designed as a support weapon it was designed solely as a strategic bomber. B-52s were able to perform conventional bombing and so were also used in that capacity. More recently the B-52s were modified to interface with precision weapons, but they were defintiely not designed from the onset to do that job.

    The Tu-95 is a strategic aircraft only, and it is not a bomber, it is a cruise missile carrier and is not for expanding the empire or controlling the natives.

    The Tu-95MS16 could easily perform its primary mission today, because the externally mounted missiles are now Kh-101s which allow a standoff range of 5,000km... very few air defence networks have that sort of a reach 5 hours after being struck by SLBMs and ICBMs.

    After a nuclear strike the B-52s would probably get through as well, but their problem is that they are not just strategic bombers, they are theatre bombers as well... a role they should be more or less capable of... you wouldn't send them in until the major SAMs have been dealt with, but the obvious problem is that the proliferation of SAMs like Pantsir that can reach high targets and low targets while being small and mobile enough to play hide and seek complicates things for large slow bombers.

    Either aircraft could be replaced by a slightly modified airliner, with greatly reduced cost of operation.

    Actually the real problem for both aircraft would be engines... fit both aircraft with high bypass modern jet engines and the operational costs would drop... the Tu-95 had an aerodynamics upgrade in the 1980s to the Tu-142 specification and its flight performance is perfectly adequate.
    Bother aircraft have "adequate" performance. My point was that the job of both aircraft could be performed with greater efficiency by a modern airliner (747, 767, 777, 787, Airbus) since neither have any capability not shared (or in most cases exceeded by) these airliners. Of course one would have to modify an airliner to carry weapons internally or externally but that would present little engineering challenge.

    I think a wing upgrade for the Buff and most importantly modern high bypass jet engines and its performance would slightly improve and its fuel consumption would plummet.
    Boeing did look at replacing the 8 old turbofans on the B-52H with 4 modern turbofans, and it would have significantly improved range and lowered fuel and maintenance costs. There were problems with limiting redundancy of certain systems however. The B-62 has 6 separate but not entirely redundant hydraulic systems that are driven by 6 of the 8 engines. With 4 "only" 4 engines these 6 hydraulic systems would no longer be independent, ie 2 systems would need to be powered by a single engine, so a single engine loss could cause a catastrophic loss of systems. Obviously a solution could be found but it made what first looked like a simple change to 4 modern engines into a much more complicated redesign of systems. I'm not sure what a wing upgrade for the B-52 wold accomplish, we had no problem with the wings.

    If we were to look a just aircraft performance the clear winner, in almost every catagory, would be the B-52H. The B-52 is faster, has longer range, higher cruise speed, higher ceiling, can carry a bigger load, higher climb rate and has more modern electronics.

    The current model Tu-95s are all Tu-142 designs and therefore are 1980s vintage.. much younger than any model B-52, and currently getting a total overhaul and electronics upgrade... and the Bear was always faster at low altitude...
    Where did you hear that the Tu-95 was faster than a B-52 at any altitude. We spent hours of every flight at high speed and low level (as low as 200ft agl) and could easily reach the structural limit of the airframe at any altitude. In fact I knew a crew that accidentally went to 460KCAS at low level (they thought they were at 360KCAS, which is below Vne). I find it hard to believe that a Tu-95 could reach 460KCAS at any altitude. At higher altitudes the B-52 was limited to .88Mmo but had sufficient power to go faster, and in testing they were flown significantly faster.

    In 1980 the B-52 may have even had a chance of penetrating well defended airspace, though the Tu-95 would not (the bear had extremely limited ability to fly low level, no FLIR or terrain avoidance radar)

    Had no... because it was a cruise missile carrier... why waste fuel at low altitude?
    Both B-52 and Tu-95 carried cruise missiles, B-52 had the AGM-86 by the mid 80s (and the Hound Dog much earlier), but cruise missiles have limitations (like all weapons). The AGM-86 had virtually identical range to the Soviet cruise missiles of the era (2500Km). The range of those cruise missiles (both Soviet and american) did not allow them to be launched from beyond protected airspace of all important targets. So B-52s continued to practise low level penetration day and night and in all weather, until the B-1 took over that job and B-2 made low level penetration unnecessary. But you are right, flying at high speed at low level does burn through a lot of fuel, which is why the longer range of the B-52 was useful.

    Also the Bear has several variants in service including a Maritime patrol aircraft, a civil airliner and an AEW aircraft...

    but today either plane would be found and shot down by the first fighter to get within 100 miles of it.

    And one of those planes would never get within 1,000km of its targets airspace...
    In some cases this is likely to be true but in the case of a target that is less than 1000km inside of the target country's airspace any aircraft
    could do it. As a bit of a cheap dig, I believe a Cessna 172 from Europe made it to Moscow at the height of the cold war, so never say never.

    But I still say that neither aircraft today is anything more than an outdated relic that could not do anything as well as a slightly modified modern airliner. Think of the range and cruise missile load of a 747-800 (it could carry 200,000 lbs of missiles or bombs for 7500NM) at higher speed than even a B-52 (much faster than a Tu-95), and burning similar fuel.

    Giulio
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 144
    Points : 167
    Join date : 2013-10-29
    Location : Italy

    Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  Giulio on Sun Apr 10, 2016 5:14 am

    B-52 introduction 1955

    Tu-95 introduction 1956

    B-747 introduction 1970

    The discoveries made in military ambit were then applied in civil. The swept wing comes from military studies. Furthermore the civil airliners are made for maximum cost effectiveness, with minimal cost for the Company. This is not true in military ambit. A 707, or a 747 are made for the maximum range with maximum payload without return, because they land at destination and refuel before back. A military aircraft should be able to return back by itself and without any help. The fuel on board is not payload, on the contrary, you have to pay it. Furthermore, the fuel weighs a lot.
    The 747 was designed like a cargo aircraft, not a bomber. For a bomber in the fifties, it mattered above all to reach at the maximum altitude and speed with a war load, in order to evade each known enemy interceptor fighter or SAM, a cargo aircraft with the maximum payload can't this (and this is not required to a freighter). Similar to the difference between an oil tanker or a container ship and a battle-cruiser.

    Captbilly
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 5
    Points : 7
    Join date : 2015-07-06

    Not sure what to make of this.

    Post  Captbilly on Sun Apr 10, 2016 1:23 pm

    Giulio wrote:B-52 introduction 1955

    Tu-95 introduction 1956

    B-747 introduction 1970

    The discoveries made in military ambit were then applied in civil. The swept wing comes from military studies. Furthermore the civil airliners are made for maximum cost effectiveness, with minimal cost for the Company. This is not true in military ambit. A 707, or a 747 are made for the maximum range with maximum payload without return, because they land at destination and refuel before back. A military aircraft should be able to return back by itself and without any help. The fuel on board is not payload, on the contrary, you have to pay it. Furthermore, the fuel weighs a lot.
    The 747 was designed like a cargo aircraft, not a bomber. For a bomber in the fifties, it mattered above all to reach at the maximum altitude and speed with a war load, in order to evade each known enemy interceptor fighter or SAM, a cargo aircraft with the maximum payload can't this (and this is not required to a freighter). Similar to the difference between an oil tanker or a container ship and a battle-cruiser.

    747 with 500 passengers and baggage and luggage (roughly 120,000 lbs) and a fancy interior and kitchens and bathrooms (roughly another 20,000 lbs) can fly nearly 8,000 NM with significant reserves, which is similar to B-52 or Tu-95 with perhaps 10,000 lbs). The Tu-95 could carry maybe 40,000 but range would be cut nearly in half. The B-52 can carry 60,000 but will lose 25% of its range. The 747 will cruise (best range cruise) at about .85 Mach (roughly 480 knots) B-52 .77 Mach (roughly 440 knots, Tu-95 best range cruise is about 300 knots. Top speed of all the aircraft is similar (.88 for 747 and B-52, .84 for Tu-95 but all the aircraft will lose some range when cruising significantly above best range speed. A Tu-95 at .84 Mach will see a huge decrease in range because top speed is way above best range.

    Again, my point being that neither the B-52 or Tu-92 have any capability (speed, range, payload, ceiling, cost effectiveness) that isn't significantly exceeded by a more modern airliner. This is not meant to insult the designers, both bombers are very old designs compared to any airliner being produced today. Understanding of aerodynamics has improved, efficiency of engines has improved dramatically, and materials have improved, so these bombers are at a huge disadvantage. If these bombers had need designed for high G maneuvers (like a fighter) or to fly at extreme altitudes (like a U2) or to fly extraordinarily fast (like Concord or SR-71) then it wouldn't be a simple matter of putting bomb doors or hard points on a747 but the fact is neither bomber has any capability that can't be beat by an airliner with a bomb bay added.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 11, 2016 4:25 am

    As a bit of a cheap dig, I believe a Cessna 172 from Europe made it to Moscow at the height of the cold war, so never say never.

    So you want to play cheap digs?

    How about lets not compare the Soviet choice not to shoot down an obviously civilian aircraft, to the US training 19 foreign nationals to fly civilian aircraft into the Pentagon and several civil buildings... I can understand ignoring a cessna trying to land in Red Square and sending helicopters to intercept it instead of MiG-23s... the MiGs could only shoot it down while the Hinds could have forced it to land if they were able to find it... but they have no radar and had no training in interception of air targets.

    The US on the other hand should have been able to intercept a few Boeings... they have 5th gen stealth fighters and top guns and shit.

    There seems to be no problems sailing into Iranian waters and shooting down Iranian airliners so what is the problem? Razz

    In some cases this is likely to be true but in the case of a target that is less than 1000km inside of the target country's airspace any aircraft
    could do it.

    Well see that is where the strategic comes in... a Bear can fly very long distances and even attack from unexpected directions in a conventional attack while remaining outside the defensive range of the vast majority of the worlds countries.

    But I still say that neither aircraft today is anything more than an outdated relic that could not do anything as well as a slightly modified modern airliner.

    If you had nothing I would certainly agree that instead of developing a B-52 or Tu95M, it would make rather more sense to look at a design like a 747 or Il-96 and start from there, but the facts are these aircraft exist and they do the job cheaper than the other aircraft used in the same role... it just makes sense to keep them on the books.

    Think of the range and cruise missile load of a 747-800 (it could carry 200,000 lbs of missiles or bombs for 7500NM) at higher speed than even a B-52 (much faster than a Tu-95), and burning similar fuel.

    These are not B-2s... these are not first strike aircraft. It matters not whether they approach their launch positions at 950km/h or 800km/h.

    The one flying fastest is not the most accurate nor the "winner".

    ...putting bomb doors or hard points on a747 but the fact is neither bomber has any capability that can't be beat by an airliner with a bomb bay added.

    Except for two critical points... one... both bombers are already made and paid for and these adapted airliners are not... so money is one huge factor... and two, if you make 747s into bombers then you make civilian airliners into legitimate targets world wide...

    A military transport like an An-225 could carry pallets of cruise missiles through its entire cargo bay length and operating at high enough altitude drop a pallet with say 32 cruise missiles stacked 8 wide and 4 deep with a parachute for the pallet to hold it level as the missiles are released... 20-30 pallets from one aircraft flying over the north pole just hitting airfields and SAM sites and ABM sites in north america... lots of potentially cheap and destabilising ideas...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 732
    Points : 892
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Mon Apr 11, 2016 7:11 pm

    some pics i took of Tu-95 and one of me next to the propellers. enjoy, aslo have pics of Tu-22M and as well as other aircraft.






    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 12, 2016 4:52 am

    Nice photos... those blades are huge...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    wilhelm
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 224
    Points : 230
    Join date : 2014-12-09

    Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  wilhelm on Wed Apr 13, 2016 8:48 am

    Very nice pics. thumbsup

    Sponsored content

    Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:51 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 03, 2016 5:51 pm