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


+7
Svyatoslavich
Pierre Sprey
Captbilly
Giulio
GarryB
sepheronx
smerch24
11 posters

    Tu-95 vs B-52

    avatar
    smerch24


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

    Tu-95 vs B-52 Empty Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  smerch24 Wed Oct 29, 2014 12:32 am

    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
    sepheronx


    Posts : 8810
    Points : 9070
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 35
    Location : Canada

    Tu-95 vs B-52 Empty Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  sepheronx Wed Oct 29, 2014 1:06 am

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

    Thats my opinion.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40437
    Points : 40937
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-95 vs B-52 Empty Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  GarryB Wed Oct 29, 2014 10:38 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.
    avatar
    smerch24


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

    Tu-95 vs B-52 Empty Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  smerch24 Wed Oct 29, 2014 5:03 pm

    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
    Giulio


    Posts : 181
    Points : 206
    Join date : 2013-10-29
    Location : Italy

    Tu-95 vs B-52 Empty Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  Giulio Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:51 am

    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
    GarryB


    Posts : 40437
    Points : 40937
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-95 vs B-52 Empty Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  GarryB Thu Oct 30, 2014 10:29 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.
    avatar
    smerch24


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

    Tu-95 vs B-52 Empty Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  smerch24 Thu Oct 30, 2014 6:01 pm

    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
    Giulio


    Posts : 181
    Points : 206
    Join date : 2013-10-29
    Location : Italy

    Tu-95 vs B-52 Empty Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  Giulio Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:46 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
    Giulio


    Posts : 181
    Points : 206
    Join date : 2013-10-29
    Location : Italy

    Tu-95 vs B-52 Empty Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  Giulio Fri Oct 31, 2014 7:34 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.
    avatar
    Captbilly


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

    Tu-95 vs B-52 Empty Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  Captbilly Tue Jul 07, 2015 5:05 am

    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
    sepheronx


    Posts : 8810
    Points : 9070
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 35
    Location : Canada

    Tu-95 vs B-52 Empty Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  sepheronx Tue Jul 07, 2015 5:08 am

    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.
    avatar
    Captbilly


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

    Tu-95 vs B-52 Empty Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  Captbilly Tue Jul 07, 2015 5:15 am

    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
    sepheronx


    Posts : 8810
    Points : 9070
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 35
    Location : Canada

    Tu-95 vs B-52 Empty Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  sepheronx Tue Jul 07, 2015 5:20 am

    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
    GarryB


    Posts : 40437
    Points : 40937
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-95 vs B-52 Empty Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  GarryB Tue Jul 07, 2015 10:04 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...
    avatar
    Captbilly


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

    Tu-95 vs B-52 Empty Some data points.

    Post  Captbilly Sun Apr 10, 2016 11:01 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
    Giulio


    Posts : 181
    Points : 206
    Join date : 2013-10-29
    Location : Italy

    Tu-95 vs B-52 Empty Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  Giulio Sun Apr 10, 2016 12:14 pm

    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.
    avatar
    Captbilly


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

    Tu-95 vs B-52 Empty Not sure what to make of this.

    Post  Captbilly Sun Apr 10, 2016 8:23 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
    GarryB


    Posts : 40437
    Points : 40937
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-95 vs B-52 Empty Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  GarryB Mon Apr 11, 2016 11:25 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...
    Pierre Sprey
    Pierre Sprey


    Posts : 129
    Points : 137
    Join date : 2017-02-01

    Tu-95 vs B-52 Empty Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  Pierre Sprey Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:26 am

    smerch24 wrote: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)

    The B 52 is the aviation equivalent of a hay wagon.

    The TU 95 is one of those few aircraft that really hit the spot and is a really unique design. Didn't Kruschev have a presidential variant that he landed in the US with ? And they didn't have a set of stairs high enough to get him out with ?
    avatar
    Svyatoslavich


    Posts : 399
    Points : 400
    Join date : 2015-04-22
    Location : Buenos Aires

    Tu-95 vs B-52 Empty Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  Svyatoslavich Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:34 am

    Pierre Sprey wrote:
    The TU 95 is one of those few aircraft that really hit the spot and is a really unique design. Didn't Kruschev have a presidential variant that he landed in the US with ? And they didn't have a set of stairs high enough to get him out with ?
    Yes, Khrushchev flew to New York in 1959 with this beauty (the Tu-114 is just one of the most beautiful airliners ever made):
    http://www.airliners.net/photo/Aeroflot/Tupolev-Tu-114/103958/L
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5960
    Points : 5912
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tu-95 vs B-52 Empty B-52 is an old dinosaur

    Post  Tsavo Lion Wed Nov 27, 2019 6:55 am

    The B-52 is a dinosaur.
    It did its job well over Iraq & Afghanistan; its new avionics, ECM gear, weapons & engines essentially make it a new & more capable plane on a par with the Tu-95MS/142МЗ. From Alaska, Guam, Diego Garcia, UK & Greenland it can reach most of its targets with less or no tanker support.
    GarryB wrote:Most of them don't even realise it is actually a jet engined aircraft... it is a turboprop.
    a pure jet engine has no use for props; it's not=a turboprop:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznetsov_NK-12

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboprop

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Components_of_jet_engines

    If it was a jet & didn't have props, it's fuel consumption would be a lot higher & unrefueled range lower. A. Tupolev didn't have jets available for an intercontinental bomber he was developing which became the Tu-95.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40437
    Points : 40937
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-95 vs B-52 Empty Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  GarryB Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:09 am

    It did its job well over Iraq & Afghanistan; its new avionics, ECM gear, weapons & engines essentially make it a new & more capable plane on a par with the Tu-95MS/142МЗ. From Alaska, Guam, Diego Garcia, UK & Greenland it can reach most of its targets with less or no tanker support.

    The B-52 is actually an antiquated piece of crap... and if they had any self respect and brains they would have retired it in the 1970s and replaced it with a military version of the Boeing 747... it could have much better performance and would likely be much cheaper as a simple bomb truck.

    a pure jet engine has no use for props; it's not=a turboprop:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznetsov_NK-12

    The link you post above is a wiki page and if you actually read that page yourself, the first paragraph is:

    The Kuznetsov NK-12 is a Soviet turboprop engine of the 1950s, designed by the Kuznetsov design bureau. The NK-12 drives two large four-bladed contra-rotating propellers, 5.6 m (18 ft) diameter (NK-12MA), and 6.2 m (20 ft) diameter (NK-12MV). It is the most powerful turboprop engine to enter service.

    But please tell us about this new invention you have created called a pure jet engine?

    If it was a jet & didn't have props, it's fuel consumption would be a lot higher & unrefueled range lower. A. Tupolev didn't have jets available for an intercontinental bomber he was developing which became the Tu-95.

    If it was a turbojet engine from the 1950s its engine power would be weak and fuel consumption high so you would need to do something drastic like create an underpowered engine with good fuel efficiency and then make up for the lack of power by putting 8 engines on the aircraft or something.

    But of course as engine technology improved over time you could replace those old crap engines with much newer much more capable engines... or in the case of the US not.

    Both the Bear and the B-52 being limited to subsonic speeds there is little need for a lot more power except to allow hauling heavier loads which generally means more external weapons and more fuel for extra range.

    Both should be replaced but cheap simple bomb trucks will always be useful.[/quote]


    Last edited by GarryB on Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5960
    Points : 5912
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tu-95 vs B-52 Empty Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  Tsavo Lion Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:44 am

    GarryB wrote:The B-52 is actually an antiquated piece of crap... and if they had any self respect and brains they would have retired it in the 1970s and replaced it with a military version of the Boeing 747... it could have much better performance and would likely be much cheaper as a simple bomb truck.
    it's now more than that. It can carry naval mines, ALC/AshMs & tactical nukes. Boeing would charge a lot of $ for dozens of B-747s, while B-52 airframes still have up to 2 decades, if not more, of life remaining.
    It is the most powerful turboprop engine to enter service[/b].
    that still doesn't make it a jet engine.
    But please tell us about this new invention you have created called a pure jet engine?
    I only "invented" a term to describe an engine with turbines but w/o a prop. U generalize many things that, metaphorically speaking, =s a floor with a ceiling. I guess being well below the Equator it's easier to overlook the difference.
    If it was a turbojet engine from the 1950s its engine power would be weak and fuel consumption high..
    the later & less numerous M-4 Bison had 4 jets, but still with lower range than the Tu-95.
    ..you could replace those old crap engines with much newer much more capable engines... or in the case of the US not.
    the oil was cheap & those jets had many spares after many B-52s were scrapped as per SALT; now they r replacing them-it's better late than never.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic


    Posts : 2634
    Points : 2803
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    Tu-95 vs B-52 Empty Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Wed Nov 27, 2019 8:14 pm

    Neither the current B52 or the Tu-95 have pure turbojet engines, but both have gas turbines engines.

    In a turboprop not all thrust comes from the propeller, but a small part come from the hot exhaust from the nozzle (after the turbine).

    With jet engines we often refers to both turbojets and turbofan, even if the difference between modern high bypass turbofan and turboprop is becoming smaller.

    The original B52 had 8 turbojet engines (Pratt & Whitney J57), but they were later modified and now each of them carries 8 Pratt & Whitney TF33 low bypass turbofan (bypass ratio of about 1.4:1).

    In a turbofan engine there is a fan in front of the compressor, and a part of the thrust is provided by the bypass flow, that is moved by the fan but does not enter the core of the engine.


    In a turbojet there is no fan and all the air entering in the air inlet goes also to the core of the engine. Therefore all the thrust come from the hot flow from the nozzle.

    Modern turbofan have a much larger bypass ratio (ratio between the mass flow rate of the bypass stream to the mass flow rate entering the core) than the early ones
    , e.g modern business jets have a bypass ratio around 5:1 and modern large turbofan for passenger planes sometimes are larger than 10:1).

    Note: A high BPR is more efficient in subsonic flight, but not necessarily a turbofan with a BPR of 12 will be advantageous in comparison to one with BPR of 8 (it depends on many factors, including also the flight profile and the typical mission).

    By the way, now there is a campaign to substitute the current B52 engines with 8 business jet engines (high bypass turbofan), and the 3 main western engine manufacturers are competing for it.

    https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/2/25/rolls-royce-gearing-up-for-b-52-re-engining-program
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5960
    Points : 5912
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tu-95 vs B-52 Empty Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  Tsavo Lion Wed Nov 27, 2019 9:33 pm

    ..now there is a campaign to substitute the current B52 engines with 8 business jet engines (high bypass turbofan), and the 3 main western engine manufacturers are competing for it.
    The service is planning to embark on a major recapitalization effort that will outfit its aging fleet of B-52 Stratofortress heavy bombers with new engines that will keep them flying through the 2050s.
    https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/2/25/rolls-royce-gearing-up-for-b-52-re-engining-program

    The report forecast the savings at $10 billion, saying the equipment “pays for itself in fuel, depot and maintenance costs, and maintenance manpower in the 2040s,” according to the document.
    ..the Air Force is looking for 25 to 30 percent better fuel efficiency and as much as 40 percent improvement in range. USAF has also expressed a desire for a cleaner-burning power plant, producing less greenhouse gases than the existing engines.
    Increasing fuel efficiency by 25 to 30 percent is “huge,” Roper said, paying off not only in cost savings, but also in range or time on station. ..USAF has opted to stick with eight engines of the class that typically powers large business jets.
    Despite their age, the B-52s have high mission-capable rates, can carry a huge diversity of weapons, and can perform effectively—as long as the enemy lacks elaborate air defenses. Even in a higher-end fight, the B-52 can still launch missiles from well outside enemy air defenses. It is the only US bomber that can launch nuclear cruise missiles, and it will be the initial platform for the new Long-Range Stand Off missile, or LRSO.
    The B-1 and B-2, which are at least 22 and 30 years younger, respectively, will retire before the B-52 for a range of reasons, according to the Bomber Vector study:
    The B-52 has in recent years racked up mission capability rates of 60 percent, far above that of the B-1 and B-2, which are at about 40 and 35 percent, respectively.
    The B-52 costs about $70,000 per flying hour, roughly half that of the B-2—even before it gets more efficient engines.
    The B-52 “has good bones,” Rand said, noting that the B-52H spent most of its service life on ground alert for nuclear operations, and still has many thousands of hours of airframe life remaining.

    http://airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2019/January%202019/Re-Engining-the-B-52.aspx?fbclid=IwAR3CdbpQlT0ZC6-hdgv416uGxQboIpj_thlXQQldW4vv5hoxcXJqF8riv78

    Which shows that they r still valuable platforms worth keeping, like the Tu-95/142s that r also being re engined.

    Sponsored content


    Tu-95 vs B-52 Empty Re: Tu-95 vs B-52

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Nov 08, 2024 6:08 am