Tu-95 vs. B-52 - Page 3

zraver · 04-01-2008, 20:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silent Hunter

Estimated 505 actually:

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

I ceed the numbers, but still more B-52's were destroyed under SALT than the USSR/Russia had operational Bear platforms. And 4x as many BUFFs were built in total.

Quote:

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 Concord did that as well. The fighters would have to be on full burner to keep up while the Concord just cruised along. After the SR-71 was retired the Concord was the fast flying platform in the world over any but the shortest l distance.

Tin Man · 04-01-2008, 21:56 PM

ZRAVER, I heard that also. A few Concordes actually took part in "war games" with the RAF, I believe the BAC Lightning was one of the few aircraft that did well whilst playing with it.

glyn · 04-02-2008, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tin Man

ZRAVER, I heard that also. A few Concordes actually took part in "war games" with the RAF, I believe the BAC Lightning was one of the few aircraft that did well whilst playing with it.

The Concorde posed enormous difficulties for any interceptor at the time. The Lightning was not overburdened with fuel and in full reheat the second fastest thing was the speed of the fuel contents guage!

Tin Man · 04-02-2008, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glyn

The Concorde posed enormous difficulties for any interceptor at the time. The Lightning was not overburdened with fuel and in full reheat the second fastest thing was the speed of the fuel contents guage!

Glyn, I was thinking about that whilst typing!

They say that Lightning pilots had their eyes glued to the fuel gauges and little else!

Jimmy · 04-02-2008, 13:42 PM

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?

They also generate such an enormous RCS that the radar guys in Alaska and Canada know a Bear's taking off as soon as the engines fire up. Exaggeration, yes. But those props give the enemy a lot of extra "heads-up" time compared to anything else but a small moon.

gunnut · 04-03-2008, 14:50 PM

"That's no moon!" -- Obi-wan Kenobi

mweber24 · 04-03-2008, 15:44 PM

I guess you all are completely discounting the electronics inside each bomber. How many GPS guided bombs can the Bear deliver in the middle of the night many miles away from the target? Isn't this the measure of how good a bomber is? How well it can bomb stuff?

I will grant that the ASW Bear is a better ASW platform than the B-52H, of course neither can find a modern submarine that is not visable on radar..

As for the Bear accelleration and climb, can it outrun a AMRAAM?

glyn · 04-03-2008, 19:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mweber24

As for the Bear accelleration and climb, can it outrun a AMRAAM?

Can a B-52, (any model you choose) ?

hello · 04-13-2008, 14:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glyn

The Concorde posed enormous difficulties for any interceptor at the time. The Lightning was not overburdened with fuel and in full reheat the second fastest thing was the speed of the fuel contents guage!

The Concorde cruises faster than just about any fighter or bomber today(even the F-22), and supercruises efficiently at that. The Raptor and Eurofighter can supercruise, but not with that kind of speed. While the airliner can be caught with afterburners, there's the obvious range problem. And the Super Hornet can't even catch a Concorde with or without burners. Quite impressive.

Of course, the SR-71 can outrun just about anything in the air, missiles included. Sadly, both of these famously fast planes are retired. It'll be a while before something comparable to either arrives.

Quote:

They also generate such an enormous RCS that the radar guys in Alaska and Canada know a Bear's taking off as soon as the engines fire up. Exaggeration, yes. But those props give the enemy a lot of extra "heads-up" time compared to anything else but a small moon.

The BUFF is no RCS king either. Probably better than the Bear, but both planes still have RCS big enough to make a comparison of this aspect nonsensical.

Jimmy · 04-14-2008, 16:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hello

The Concorde cruises faster than just about any fighter or bomber today(even the F-22), and supercruises efficiently at that. The Raptor and Eurofighter can supercruise, but not with that kind of speed. While the airliner can be caught with afterburners, there's the obvious range problem. And the Super Hornet can't even catch a Concorde with or without burners. Quite impressive.

What kind of cruising speed are you talking about for the Concorde? The previous CSAF told reporters he had the Raptor up to Mach 1.7 without afterburner.

Dreadnought · 04-14-2008, 16:56 PM

Long before the Concorde SST there was a Mach 3 Bomber known as the Valkyrie an excellent delta dart design that achieved such speed by riding the shockwave its body created and folding wings with no defensive armament just pure speed. A beautiful plane to behold.

glyn · 04-14-2008, 17:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy

What kind of cruising speed are you talking about for the Concorde? The previous CSAF told reporters he had the Raptor up to Mach 1.7 without afterburner.

Concorde was designed for a sustained Mach 2.2 cruise.

glyn · 04-14-2008, 18:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Long before the Concorde SST there was a Mach 3 Bomber known as the Valkyrie an excellent delta dart design that achieved such speed by riding the shockwave its body created and folding wings with no defensive armament just pure speed. A beautiful plane to behold.

The XB-70 was a gorgeous looking brute, there's no doubt about that. It was also the only design ever to employ compression lift. For some reason no other aircraft design has even attempted this. The 2 Valkyries completed were used as experimental machines only as the requirement for a Mach 3 bomber was dropped. They would have been ruinously expensive to bring into service.

zraver · 04-14-2008, 20:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy

What kind of cruising speed are you talking about for the Concorde? The previous CSAF told reporters he had the Raptor up to Mach 1.7 without afterburner.

Concord could go from London/Paris to NYC at mach 2.2 w/o refueling. Any fighter that tried to keep up wouldn't reach Iceland.

Bowman · 04-14-2008, 21:40 PM

Why would speed be a significant determinant as to which aircraft is better? Range, payload, ECM suite, ease of servicing/operation would seem important. Neither one is really "better". Both have been very efficient for decades and both are still relevant.

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, 21:56 PM	#32 (permalink)
Tin Man Contributor Join Date: 06-02-07 Location: In the `shires. Posts: 396 Country:	ZRAVER, I heard that also. A few Concordes actually took part in "war games" with the RAF, I believe the BAC Lightning was one of the few aircraft that did well whilst playing with it. __________________ "Liberty is a thing beyond all price.

04-03-2008, 14:50 PM	#36 (permalink)
gunnut *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-27-06 Location: DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 9,353 Country:	"That's no moon!" -- Obi-wan Kenobi __________________ "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

04-03-2008, 15:44 PM	#37 (permalink)
mweber24 *Military Professional* Join Date: 03-18-08 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 66 Country:	I guess you all are completely discounting the electronics inside each bomber. How many GPS guided bombs can the Bear deliver in the middle of the night many miles away from the target? Isn't this the measure of how good a bomber is? How well it can bomb stuff? I will grant that the ASW Bear is a better ASW platform than the B-52H, of course neither can find a modern submarine that is not visable on radar.. As for the Bear accelleration and climb, can it outrun a AMRAAM? __________________ The SWO

04-14-2008, 16:56 PM	#41 (permalink)
Dreadnought *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 05-12-05 Posts: 5,310 Country:	Long before the Concorde SST there was a Mach 3 Bomber known as the Valkyrie an excellent delta dart design that achieved such speed by riding the shockwave its body created and folding wings with no defensive armament just pure speed. A beautiful plane to behold. __________________ Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

04-14-2008, 21:40 PM	#45 (permalink)
Bowman Regular Join Date: 03-26-07 Posts: 72	Why would speed be a significant determinant as to which aircraft is better? Range, payload, ECM suite, ease of servicing/operation would seem important. Neither one is really "better". Both have been very efficient for decades and both are still relevant.

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

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