Tu-95 vs. B-52 - Page 2

zraver · 03-31-2008, 18:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glyn

They have both been active since 1955. Bears are mostly (not exclusively) for long range maritime missions. No-one has yet mentioned the Bears engines. They have been the worlds most powerful turboprops for well over half a century. Only 4 are needed to propel the Bear at similar speed to the BUFF - and let us not forget that the B-52 needs 8 engines.

B-52 is twice the weight. The bear cruises slower than the B-52, has only half the armament, a lower ceiling, a bigger crew, slower dash speed etc.

JA Boomer · 03-31-2008, 18:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Albany Rifles

My point being a lot of what the Bear may be able to do the BUFF has been doing pretty constantly since 1955.

Then your evaluation scheme is flawed. Would you have said the B-2 was a less capable bomber than the B-52 before the 1998 Kosovo campaign, I think not.

The fact that the B-52 has undertaken loads more missions and dropped loads more bombs only serves to verify the capability of the B-52, and not degrade the capability of the Tu-95.

Gun Grape · 03-31-2008, 19:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zraver

Different Missions. The Tu-95 is a maritime patrol bomber probably the best in the world. The B-52 is a strategic bomber and probably the best big bomb truck of all time.

And you state the reason I voted neither.

A closer me vs you machup would pit the TU-95 against the P-3

glyn · 03-31-2008, 19:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zraver

B-52 is twice the weight. The bear cruises slower than the B-52,

Not by much. I have the Flight Manual for the B-52 AND the Performance Data Manual to prove it.

has only half the armament,

A Bear dropped the most powerful nuclear bomb ever, and totes a very worthwhile ordinance load today when required.

a lower ceiling,

I'll grant you that one, 39,000' against 50,000' - but missiles can reach higher than either, so can fighters.

a bigger crew,

No big deal either way.

slower dash speed etc.

Certainly not enough to be of any great significance. There are areas in performance when the Bear comes out on top, but I'll have to skate over that as I'll not divulge data from official manuals. I simply cannot understand why so many Americans have such a poor view of all Russian (or foreign) equipment, and such an exaggerated view of the capabilities of their own.

zraver · 03-31-2008, 21:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glyn

Certainly not enough to be of any great significance. There are areas in performance when the Bear comes out on top, but I'll have to skate over that as I'll not divulge data from official manuals. I simply cannot understand why so many Americans have such a poor view of all Russian (or foreign) equipment, and such an exaggerated view of the capabilities of their own.

I don't discount the bear in its mission, it is probably the best maritime patrol bomber in the world. It's got great legs and is superbly reliable and is the ultimate grandchild of the B-29.

Quote:

A Bear dropped the most powerful nuclear bomb ever, and totes a very worthwhile ordinance load today when required.

It totes half as much weight as a B-52.

Quote:

No big deal either way.

higher crew costs overall per scale.

Bear D- cruising speed 442mph 6-10 missiles Kh-55 1000lb warhead 1864 miles B-52H cruising speed 552 (+110mph) 20 tomahawks each with 1000lb warhead and 1553 mile range (+10/14 missiles)

B-52 more punch more targets Bear-D greater stand off range

omon · 03-31-2008, 22:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zraver

B-52 more punch more targets Bear-D greater stand off range

true, but for the price of 1 b 52 you get more than 1 bear, and if you lose 1 out of 1, bad, 1 out of 3(for examlpe) not so bad.

you did mention tu is a different purpose bomber, you are 100% correct, than this vs thread is as valid as pitbull vs spaniel.

lets compare stratigic bomober to the same class bomber, which would be, either backfire, or tu 160.

gunnut · 03-31-2008, 22:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glyn

No-one has yet mentioned the Bears engines. They have been the worlds most powerful turboprops for well over half a century.

I did...sort of. The 8 propellers on the 4 turbine engines are so big and spin so fast, their tips break the sound barrier to generate mini sonic booms. Or so I've heard. Most Bear crewmen suffer from hearing damage. Is that true?

glyn · 04-01-2008, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

I did...sort of. The 8 propellers on the 4 turbine engines are so big and spin so fast, their tips break the sound barrier to generate mini sonic booms. Or so I've heard. Most Bear crewmen suffer from hearing damage. Is that true?

Truthful answer is; I don't know, but I tend to doubt it as if the tips of the props were supersonic there would be a great loss in propulsive efficiency due to the shock waves (and thus turbulence) generated. This could also cause sonic fatigue on the rest of the airframe.

Silent Hunter · 04-01-2008, 08:00 AM

The Tu-95MS6 "Bear-H" is a strategic bomber, though.

Vis a vis BLACK BUCK, wasn't rendering Port Stanley largely non-operational fairly important?

HistoricalDavid · 04-01-2008, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

I did...sort of. The 8 propellers on the 4 turbine engines are so big and spin so fast, their tips break the sound barrier to generate mini sonic booms. Or so I've heard. Most Bear crewmen suffer from hearing damage. Is that true?

As far as I know, it is a big point of design to make sure they never exceed supersonic speed for the reasons glyn stated. It's the reason jets were needed to break the sound barrier.

http://www.aviapedia.com/files/bombe...95/Tu-95MS.jpg

The cross-sectional area is gigantic so that they won't have to spin so fast to generate the same displacement.

zraver · 04-01-2008, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by omon

true, but for the price of 1 b 52 you get more than 1 bear, and if you lose 1 out of 1, bad, 1 out of 3(for examlpe) not so bad.

The B-52's are limited by treaty its not like they are new prodiction those cost were paid a long time ago so a 2-1 doesn't really count when your talking about an aircraft that had more platforms in service at one time then Russia had Bears, Blackjacks, and Backfires.

Quote:

you did mention tu is a different purpose bomber, you are 100% correct, than this vs thread is as valid as pitbull vs spaniel.

lets compare stratigic bomober to the same class bomber, which would be, either backfire, or tu 160.

Again not a real valid comparison with the B-52.

The best head to head is Tu-160 vs the B-1b

The lancer is slower, shorter legged (w/o a2a refueling), smaller and has a smaller payload but more airframes better avionics, more flight time and much better RDS reduction. Either craft is a fear of god weapon against any other nation on Earth.

Silent Hunter · 04-01-2008, 10:14 AM

I'm sure the Tu-95 was limited under SALT.

zraver · 04-01-2008, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silent Hunter

I'm sure the Tu-95 was limited under SALT.

I know it was, but it did not have 365 airframes destroyed either. There were never than many Bears built.

Silent Hunter · 04-01-2008, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zraver

I know it was, but it did not have 365 airframes destroyed either. There were never than many Bears built.

Estimated 505 actually:

C:\ZIP\NEWHOME\NWS001\combair008.htm

Tin Man · 04-01-2008, 18:03 PM

Glyn is right I reckon, many underestimate the Bear...at their peril!
It has embarrassed a few maritime patrol aircraft like the Nimrod a few times!

It has also demonstrated a remarkable climb rate and acceleration to embarrass a few fighters, although briefly, I am talking Tornado F.3 of course, which frequently needs one afterburner lit to keep up at altitude. More a measure of the deficiencies of the Tornado which was designed for low and fast rather than high altitude performance, but on acceleration, at least initially, the Bear has left Egg on a few NATO fighter drivers faces.

The propellers TIPS actually reach transonic speeds ( Mach 0.8 to 1.2) at full chat, and it is an extremely noisy aircraft. A lot of helicopter rotor tips and even tail rotor tips reach transonic speeds but it is not desirable.
Speeds of 575 kts have been quoted for the Bear.

For anyone familiar with fluid dynamics, reference Bermouli`s equations for compressible flows at low Mach for an understanding of air flows and propeller behaviour.

View Poll Results: Which is the better bomber?
Tu-95	8	22.22%
B-52	24	66.67%
Neither	4	11.11%
Voters: 36. You may not vote on this poll

04-01-2008, 18:03 PM	#30 (permalink)
Tin Man Contributor Join Date: 06-02-07 Location: In the `shires. Posts: 396 Country:	Glyn is right I reckon, many underestimate the Bear...at their peril! It has embarrassed a few maritime patrol aircraft like the Nimrod a few times! It has also demonstrated a remarkable climb rate and acceleration to embarrass a few fighters, although briefly, I am talking Tornado F.3 of course, which frequently needs one afterburner lit to keep up at altitude. More a measure of the deficiencies of the Tornado which was designed for low and fast rather than high altitude performance, but on acceleration, at least initially, the Bear has left Egg on a few NATO fighter drivers faces. The propellers TIPS actually reach transonic speeds ( Mach 0.8 to 1.2) at full chat, and it is an extremely noisy aircraft. A lot of helicopter rotor tips and even tail rotor tips reach transonic speeds but it is not desirable. Speeds of 575 kts have been quoted for the Bear. For anyone familiar with fluid dynamics, reference Bermouli`s equations for compressible flows at low Mach for an understanding of air flows and propeller behaviour. __________________ "Liberty is a thing beyond all price. Last edited by Tin Man : 04-01-2008 at 18:12 PM. Reason: Added note..

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

04-01-2008, 08:00 AM	#24 (permalink)
Silent Hunter Contributor Join Date: 08-09-07 Location: London, UK Posts: 518 Country:	The Tu-95MS6 "Bear-H" is a strategic bomber, though. Vis a vis BLACK BUCK, wasn't rendering Port Stanley largely non-operational fairly important?

04-01-2008, 10:14 AM	#27 (permalink)
Silent Hunter Contributor Join Date: 08-09-07 Location: London, UK Posts: 518 Country:	I'm sure the Tu-95 was limited under SALT.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)