Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tu-95MS "Bear"

    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1138
    Points : 1172
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 10 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  mnztr Fri Sep 04, 2020 12:04 am

    GarryB wrote:
    This is true, and I doubt every single bomber will need 6 nuclear short range missiles to battle their way through to their launch positions... by the time these aircraft are approaching enemy territory the ICBMs and SLBMs will have already destroyed cities and airfields and HQs and communications centres etc...

    In times of tension they tend to send the bombers out first for several reasons. 1) they are recallable  2) it stretches out the decision time while allowing dialogue to continue 3) they risk being destroyed on the ground so get them into the air. 4) it reduces the chance of a first strike by the enemy as they know there is plenty of capacity to retaliate if they strike 5) it gradually increases pressure on the enemy without forcing split second responses.

    Imagine watching the long range radar and seeing the entire Russian strategic bomber fleet take off. That is something that will definitely focus the mind.
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1138
    Points : 1172
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 10 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  mnztr Fri Sep 04, 2020 12:38 am

    Isos wrote:

    Tu-95 is good against other nuclear states but not so much against US.

    the Bear is still very effective against the US. It can fly in on a strike mission. then go to low altitude where it will launch its payload. Then it will head home, all while well out of US interception range.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29444
    Points : 29972
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 10 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  GarryB Fri Sep 04, 2020 8:18 am

    Unless the VKS says they're retiring the Kh-102 there's no reason to believe that.

    Even if they developed a nuclear ramjet powered cruise missile of unlimited range and had them in enormous numbers today (btw... fit them with retractable undercarriage and more than one droppable nuclear warhead and call them UCAVs so they don't count in START treaties), then the nuclear armed Kh-102s could still be used against a wide range of targets that don't require unlimited range missiles...

    Most of europe for instance.

    The B-2 was designed with the concept that it would be completely invisible to any radar, so it can calmly stroll into any airspace, drop its bombs and casually walk away.
    And then out of nowhere, reality bit them in the back.

    Yes, when flying at medium altitudes their fuel efficient engines give them good range and the compact nature of nuclear bombs meaning large numbers of targets could be engaged made it a good idea... as long as the enemy couldn't see it.

    Problem is that even their slowest oldest interceptors could catch it and shoot it down... directed to visual range by ground based radar.

    Most interceptors in Russia have IRST which would have done too.

    US also has OTH radars around their mainland. They will detect those tu-95 pretty far away. They also have hundreds of f-15 and f22 supported by a huge fleet of tankers to intercept them far away and using AIM 120D with around 150km range against such bombers.

    Except those amazing air defences will have already been hit by ICBMs and SLBMs and will likely not be in any condition to do anything operationally for quite some time... but more than that the bombers themselves will be carrying Gzur 1,500km range nuclear armed missiles that fly at mach 6 and are intended to destroy any operation radars or air bases or indeed aircraft in the air... plus of course the fact that by the time the Bears get there flying low they wont be an easy target to spot 5,000kms away from the targets they are about to launch attacks at... the Blackjacks would have already been there and done that and turned and left at mach 2...

    The 5000km range for kh-102 isn't official or proved. It comes directly from a random guy on wikipedia. I wouldn't bet on more than 3000km.

    Of course... because the Kh-55SM from the 1980s at 6 metres long and 1.5 tons in weight that has a proven range of 3,000km would obviously suggest that a new missile that is 7.4 metres long and a ton heavier couldn't possibly have extended its flight range any distance at all.... yep... 3,000km is the limit...

    And it comes from the Russian military. 4,500km for the conventionally armed Kh-101 and 5,000km for the nuclear armed Kh-102.

    The kh-102 is as stealth for US OTH radars as new US missile for russian OTH radars.

    Very true, but the ICBMs and SLBMs hitting the fewer OTH US radars will be actively evading their ABMs, while the much older US ICBMs and SLBMs wont be trying to evade the ABMs around the Russian OTH radars...

    Then they can guide the f-16/15/22 to destroy them in flight or coordinate their patriot batteries. They will probably get more AD systems to counter PGM as they saw the good results of pantsir/tors against their missiles in Syria.

    They will probably try... but as I said those bombers will be carrying missiles to clear the way and could and probably will only be engaging targets from great distances...

    They can also keep 2 carrier on both coast to watch for the bombers with ground vased AWACS and their AEGIS cruisers.

    The current state of their carrier fleets... would they have them in position in time?

    Tu-95 is good against other nuclear states but not so much against US.

    I think you are over estimating the air defence ability of the US to protect itself after being hit by a full scale nuclear attack...

    In times of tension they tend to send the bombers out first for several reasons. 1) they are recallable 2) it stretches out the decision time while allowing dialogue to continue 3) they risk being destroyed on the ground so get them into the air. 4) it reduces the chance of a first strike by the enemy as they know there is plenty of capacity to retaliate if they strike 5) it gradually increases pressure on the enemy without forcing split second responses.

    Indeed, but those bombers don't race out to positions near enemy air space... it is likely SLBMs and ICBMs will be landing hours before the bombers launch their cruise missiles...

    And US bombers will be little to no threat to Russian bombers.

    It might be of interest that both sides fly their aircraft low as they approach enemy territory to make detection harder... and that includes B-2s and B-1Bs and B-52s and the funny thing is that at low level a Bear is actually faster than a B-52 and has much better flight range.

    Bears are also much cheaper to fly than Blackjacks.




    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1138
    Points : 1172
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 10 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  mnztr Fri Sep 04, 2020 5:06 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    In times of tension they tend to send the bombers out first for several reasons. 1) they are recallable  2) it stretches out the decision time while allowing dialogue to continue 3) they risk being destroyed on the ground so get them into the air. 4) it reduces the chance of a first strike by the enemy as they know there is plenty of capacity to retaliate if they strike 5) it gradually increases pressure on the enemy without forcing split second responses.

    Indeed, but those bombers don't race out to positions near enemy air space... it is likely SLBMs and ICBMs will be landing hours before the bombers launch their cruise missiles...

    And US bombers will be little to no threat to Russian bombers.

    It might be of interest that both sides fly their aircraft low as they approach enemy territory to make detection harder... and that includes B-2s and B-1Bs and B-52s and the funny thing is that at low level a Bear is actually faster than a B-52 and has much better flight range.

    Bears are also much cheaper to fly than Blackjacks.


    The bombers will be launched even before the decision is made to actually strike. Yes they will head to their launch positions. The US knows the capabilities of their missiles, so they know roughly what radius that is, and its WELL out of their air defence range. The ICBMs will be on high alert. This is the most dangerous time. One false move and the world would end. All this while they would be talking trying to find a way to save the world...hopefully. There would be an infinite possibility of orders. Wait for confirmation, launch unless recalled, launch at a designated time etc etc.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29444
    Points : 29972
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 10 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  GarryB Sat Sep 05, 2020 7:33 am

    Yes they will head to their launch positions.

    No they wont... they will loiter over Russian territory and get topped up by inflight refuelling aircraft while they wait for further orders... flying to their launch positions would leave them exposed and unable to use their nuclear armed self defence missiles to defend themselves...

    The US knows the capabilities of their missiles, so they know roughly what radius that is, and its WELL out of their air defence range.

    The US will have a good idea of where the launch positions will be based on the likely targets and the range of the missiles.... and sending the bombers to those launch positions before a war even starts will also be a bit of a give away to the Americans too.

    There would be an infinite possibility of orders. Wait for confirmation, launch unless recalled, launch at a designated time etc etc.

    The launch positions for the Russian bombers will be well outside Russian controlled airspace... making them sitting ducks and why?

    Once they are airborne and flying at 800km/h the chance of hitting them with ICBMs or SLBMs is so low it can be ignored... 1,500 warheads sounds like a lot but there are lots of important military and civilian targets they need to hit... launching warheads at empty areas in Siberia on the chance there might be bombers flying around there is a terrible waste of resources and assets.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 4158
    Points : 4152
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 45
    Location : Merkelland

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 10 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  Hole Wed Oct 07, 2020 8:13 pm

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 10 028010
    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 10 028210
    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 10 028410

    GarryB, George1, mnztr, 11E and Finty like this post

    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1138
    Points : 1172
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 10 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  mnztr Wed Oct 07, 2020 11:19 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Yes they will head to their launch positions.

    No they wont... they will loiter over Russian territory and get topped up by inflight refuelling aircraft while they wait for further orders... flying to their launch positions would leave them exposed and unable to use their nuclear armed self defence missiles to defend themselves...

    The US knows the capabilities of their missiles, so they know roughly what radius that is, and its WELL out of their air defence range.

    The US will have a good idea of where the launch positions will be based on the likely targets and the range of the missiles.... and sending the bombers to those launch positions before a war even starts will also be a bit of a give away to the Americans too.

    There would be an infinite possibility of orders. Wait for confirmation, launch unless recalled, launch at a designated time etc etc.

    The launch positions for the Russian bombers will be well outside Russian controlled airspace... making them sitting ducks and why?

    Once they are airborne and flying at 800km/h the chance of hitting them with ICBMs or SLBMs is so low it can be ignored... 1,500 warheads sounds like a lot but there are lots of important military and civilian targets they need to hit... launching warheads at empty areas in Siberia on the chance there might be bombers flying around there is a terrible waste of resources and assets.

    The potential launch positions with the long range cruise missiles is almost limitless. The mission to try an intercept them will be massive, with tanker, fighters etc. The Russians can easily alter course and pick from limitless alternatives, or fly back to their tankers Any intercept will have to fly out thousands of KM to be effective, its almost impossible
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29444
    Points : 29972
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 10 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  GarryB Thu Oct 08, 2020 5:34 am

    I agree that they provide a definite threat to Russias enemies... mainly because Americans air defence network is largely based on fighters, while Russian air defence is based on fighters and proper interceptors as well as an extensive ground based network of air defence systems...

    If the bombing attack by a Vulcan on the Falklands Islands to take out the airfield on the islands to prevent Argentina from using the islands to forward base fighters to take on the British armada is the yardstick, the Tu-95 actually looks very very good... not only does it have excellent range but also is getting a variety of air to ground launched standoff munitions that would be optimised for taking out specific targets including runways....

    Merely 12 years ago they had to use Backfires with large numbers of conventional bombs to attack runways in Georgia... which was a serious risk.

    With standoff cruise missiles with submunition warheads able to fly low and fast down the length of the runway with cratering munitions that can be launched from enormous distances from the airfield itself is a huge step forward...
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 16238
    Points : 16735
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 10 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  George1 Mon Dec 21, 2020 3:24 pm

    Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have received five upgraded Tu-95MS strategic bombers, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said at the ministry’s board meeting on Monday.

    https://tass.com/defense/1237861

    GarryB, Big_Gazza, LMFS and Hole like this post

    George1
    George1

    Posts : 16238
    Points : 16735
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 10 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  George1 Wed Dec 23, 2020 5:40 pm

    The service life of the modernized NK-12MPM engine for the Tupolev Tu-95MS strategic bomber will increase four-fold, Chief Designer of UEC-Kuznetsov Company (part of the United Engine Corporation within the state tech corporation Rostec) Pavel Chupin said on Wednesday.

    https://tass.com/defense/1238899

    GarryB, Big_Gazza and LMFS like this post

    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 4158
    Points : 4152
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 45
    Location : Merkelland

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 10 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  Hole Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:04 pm

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 10 000438
    Not the MS version but I´m to lazy to search for a better place.

    GarryB and Finty like this post

    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1138
    Points : 1172
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 10 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  mnztr Fri Feb 05, 2021 4:50 am

    George1 wrote:The service life of the modernized NK-12MPM engine for the Tupolev Tu-95MS strategic bomber will increase four-fold, Chief Designer of UEC-Kuznetsov Company (part of the United Engine Corporation within the state tech corporation Rostec) Pavel Chupin said on Wednesday.

    https://tass.com/defense/1238899

    I wonder what the actual MTBO/service life is. Its a shame they could not find a way to make to less noisy. I wonder how it compares to modern turboprops in terms of efficiency. Is there a potential use for it in a different plane with more modern props? It would be cool if Russia could turn it into a ducted fan and use 2 on the MS21 for example.
    lancelot
    lancelot

    Posts : 396
    Points : 398
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 10 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  lancelot Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:56 am

    mnztr wrote:
    George1 wrote:The service life of the modernized NK-12MPM engine for the Tupolev Tu-95MS strategic bomber will increase four-fold, Chief Designer of UEC-Kuznetsov Company (part of the United Engine Corporation within the state tech corporation Rostec) Pavel Chupin said on Wednesday.

    https://tass.com/defense/1238899

    I wonder what the actual MTBO/service life is. Its a shame they could not find a way to make to less noisy. I wonder how it compares to modern turboprops in terms of efficiency. Is there a potential use for it in a different plane with more modern props? It would be cool if Russia could turn it into a ducted fan and use 2 on the MS21 for example.

    Actually from what I heard the new engine is a lot less noisy because they designed and produced new turboprop blades for the engine.

    Big_Gazza likes this post

    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1138
    Points : 1172
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 10 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  mnztr Wed Feb 10, 2021 3:50 am

    lancelot wrote:
    Actually from what I heard the new engine is a lot less noisy because they designed and produced new turboprop blades for the engine.

    They produce less vibe and probably less noise but the bulk of the noise from these engines is from the supersonic propellor tips, essentially there are 8 continual sonic booms onging at high power settings.
    MTBO of the new version is 5000H which is not bad.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 9920
    Points : 10065
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 10 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  kvs Wed Feb 10, 2021 8:24 am

    That sort of begs the question as to whether they can use curved blades to reduce the tip supersonic shock effect.

    Seems like there is no particular reason that scimitar blades cannot be used for contra-rotating configurations.

    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1138
    Points : 1172
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 10 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  mnztr Wed Feb 10, 2021 8:35 am

    kvs wrote:That sort of begs the question as to whether they can use curved blades to reduce the tip supersonic shock effect.  

    Seems like there is no particular reason that scimitar blades cannot be used for contra-rotating configurations.


    I was hoping they would do this with the new props, you can also add more blades add reduce the overall diameter drop the RPM etc, but I would guess it would require a much more major development effort. The A400 has 8 blades vs 4x4 contra rotating on the Tu-95. Who knows maybe the tip vortices impart some effect on the wings and control surfaces.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29444
    Points : 29972
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 10 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  GarryB Wed Feb 10, 2021 10:30 am

    They produce less vibe and probably less noise but the bulk of the noise from these engines is from the supersonic propellor tips, essentially there are 8 continual sonic booms onging at high power settings.

    Bullshit.

    The Bear is 150km/h faster than the west thought it could be mainly because the blades are not supersonic and never become supersonic in use.

    The Bear is the worlds fastest propeller driven aircraft... it is the only propeller driven aircraft that actually benefits from and requires swept wings.

    I rather suspect improvements that are said to have reduced vibration by 50% were related to using new machine tools and computer controlled milling machine equipment to build the propellers and engine components with much better precision.

    BTW the Harvard (T-6 Texan) and the Iroquois UH-1 helicopter are super loud with the thump thump thump of the twin main rotor blade being very distinctive, while the roar of the Harvard on takeoff is very very loud.

    In comparison the Bear is not.

    That sort of begs the question as to whether they can use curved blades to reduce the tip supersonic shock effect.

    There is no supersonic shock effect.... the blades spin at a steady 750 rpm and throttle changes only change the angle of attack of the blades...
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 16238
    Points : 16735
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 10 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  George1 Thu Mar 11, 2021 3:16 pm

    Tu-95MS flight

    Hole, 11E and Finty like this post

    d_taddei2
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1817
    Points : 1995
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 10 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  d_taddei2 Sun Apr 04, 2021 3:14 am

    You have to ask yourself if it was too noisy to be used or be usefull Russia could have easily retired it and built something newer, or made vast improvements. They reason they continue to use it and upgrade it is that it's still fit for purpose. It's basically long range missile carrier that never actually has to get close to the enemy. U might know it's coming and from a long distance but what it's carrying u don't know, and once it launches it payload u still have to face the threat, the threat would be the same if any other aircraft fired the same payload.

    You could ask yourself why still use a turboprop aircraft originally designed in the late 1950's. Since then there has been other jet powered bombers such as the Tu-16/ H-6. And China had upgraded and could easily sell them to Russia. Why it's simple. If you compare the two aircraft.

    Tu-95 cruising speed 440mph (this could be higher with new engines)

    H-6 cruising speed 477mph

    Tu-95 payload 15,000kg

    H-6 payload 12,000kg

    Tu-95 range 15,000km

    H-6 range 6,000km

    So from we can see the cruising speed of the H-6 is only slightly faster, but the Tu-95 can an extra 3,000kg payload and its range is more than double the range of the H-6. And the new engines the Tu-95 are getting could increase the cruising speed and range of the Tu-95. So u can see the reasoning behind using the aircraft. The H-6 is most likely quieter but it's irrelevant as both aircraft can still be detected just as easily, but the Tu-95 can travel further and carry more. And turboprops engines tend to be cheaper to maintain and are more robust and don't have the sensitivity of FOD damage. Don't get wrong the H-6 is still a useful bomber for China's needs. But I am surprised China never bought Tu-22m from Russia. It's a much better aircraft than the H-6 and I feel China wasted money into H-6 development. In fact China missed out on a golden opportunity with the Tu-22m, when Ukraine was getting rid of theirs China could have grabbed itself a bargain, Ukraine would have sold them fairly cheaply, and China could have gotten Ukrainian and Russian assistance and development. And China and Russia could have developed missiles together, it would have saved China loads of money, and they would have a better bomber, Russia would gain parts and maintenance contracts and possibly research and development joint projects, and Ukraine gets money for something it had no use for, couldn't afford to keep, I do know there was some treaty but it was mostly based around missiles. And Ukraine could have dismantled and ship to China and made it look like they were scrapped loooool.

    I personally think the aircraft does a great job at what it's intended role is. And I think once the PAK DA comes along only the older versions of the Tu-95 will be replaced. I think we will see upgraded Tu-22M, Tu-95, Tu-160 and PAK DA both in service for years to come side by side. And I think it's s great combination of bombers.

    GarryB likes this post

    George1
    George1

    Posts : 16238
    Points : 16735
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 10 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  George1 Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:26 pm

    The crews of the Tu-95MS strategic missile carriers of the long-range aviation regiment in the Amur Region completed air patrols in a given area and performed air refueling at an altitude of more than 5400 meters.

    GarryB, d_taddei2, Hole, UZB-76 and Finty like this post

    Kiko
    Kiko

    Posts : 507
    Points : 515
    Join date : 2020-11-11
    Age : 72
    Location : Brasilia

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 10 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  Kiko Sun May 23, 2021 8:53 pm

    The USA declared the superiority of the Tu-95MS over American counterparts
    May 23, 2021

    The Russian strategic bomber-missile carrier Tu-95MS is significantly superior to its counterparts released in the United States, even taking into account the seemingly outdated design. This informs edition 19fortyfive.

    The article notes that the overproduction of the Tu-95 was started in 1981 and was due to the fact that the existing models were not suitable for modernization. Thus, Russian bombers are significantly newer than their American counterparts, said the author of the material, Peter Suciu.

    The military power of the Tu-95MS bombers is also evidenced by the fact that they are able to carry modern X-101 missiles, the specialist noted. In addition, the crews of these aircraft often fly close to Western airspace, Suciu noted.

    The Tu-95MS aircraft has been in operation for over 60 years, being the only propeller-driven bomber in service in the world.

    Earlier, on May 10, the US military expert H.I. Sutton published a picture of the Su-57 fighter that took part in the Victory Parade in Moscow, calling it a "handsome killer." His subscribers also agreed with the expert's opinion. They noted the external appeal of the Su-57 and its sonorous name.

    The parade structure, which flew over Red Square on May 9, included 76 aircraft . In particular, the aforementioned Tu-95MS took part in the event.

    https://iz.ru/1168029/2021-05-23/v-ssha-zaiavili-o-prevoskhodstve-tu-95ms-nad-amerikanskimi-analogami
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 10795
    Points : 10869
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 10 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  PapaDragon Sun May 23, 2021 9:36 pm


    We spent so much time duscussing what wil happen with Tu-95 after Tu-160s and PAK-DAs get delivered in numbers but we completely forgot one thing: Tu-95s are perfect for Arctic

    So once Tu-160 and PAK-DA start rolling out my guess is that Tu-95s will be migrating Northwards permanently and continuing with with their job as usual

    GarryB, Big_Gazza, miketheterrible and TMA1 like this post

    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1138
    Points : 1172
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 10 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  mnztr Thu May 27, 2021 8:12 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    We spent so much time duscussing what wil happen with Tu-95 after Tu-160s and PAK-DAs get delivered in numbers but we completely forgot one thing: Tu-95s are perfect for Arctic

    So once Tu-160 and PAK-DA start rolling out my guess is that Tu-95s will be migrating Northwards permanently and continuing with with their job as usual


    What makes them so good for the arctic? Typically jets are better suited as they have fully heated wing surfaces and operate really well in the cold. With turbo props you can get ice flinging off the props etc. I am sure it can work well in the Arctic, but a TU-160 would be even better.

    Finty likes this post


    Sponsored content

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 10 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:57 pm