S-2

"Listen more to the journalists and the politicians shouting about old Russian planes."

We shall.

__________________
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski

Firral

And why then nobody speaks that B-52 is an old plane (pulled out from naphthalene - as your journalists speak)?

__________________

glyn

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

Silent Hunter

I'm not very good at spotting jokes- at least not on text-based forums.

The "Bear" is old, but those Kh-55s have rather a long range.

Adux

touche, is it!!!!!!!

Firral

Not such old as B-52 nevertheless.
For planes of this class - age, not the main characteristic. Their electronics is modernized, engines vary, but the plane remains former. Their main purpose - the big cargo on the big distance.

Dreadnought

And ofcoarse the ability to stay in the air 24 hours a day if need be. That states alot about the upkeep of the aircraft itself.

__________________
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

Bella

Hey!.........I'm just saying, prop planes for bombers seem old and too slow.
I know the B-52 is a very old bomber, but the amount of bombs and cruise missiles it can carry is unbelievable, plus it is propelled by jet engines.
I don't mean to offend anyone, but it looks like something I would see in a WWII air show that's all! I also know the U.S. uses prop planes for its military, but they are usually the C-130 cargo, or gunship.

Firral

Propeller aeroplane cheaper and economic in operation, than jet. For airplanes, which speed to not be the main characteristic (for example transport, marine scouts or strategic bombers) - the propeller engine is quite comprehensible.

The comparative characteristic:
The maximal takeoff weight, т
Тu-95 - 187,7
B-52 - 220
The maximal speed, km/h
Тu-95 - 925
B-52 - 1000
Fighting radius, km
Тu-95 - 6500
B-52 - 7210
The maximal range, km
Тu-95 - 15 000
B-52 - 15 000
Operational ceiling, m
Тu-95 - 12 000
B-52 - 17 000
Cumulative thrust of engines, kg\sec
Тu-95 - 40 000
B-52 - 61 600
Arms, kg
Тu-95 - 11 340
B-52 - 20 650

There is such concept, as economic efficiency. Cost of one Tu-95MS in tens times is less than B-52. Thus, for the same sum, that you spent for one B-52, we could construct ten Tu-95MS.
And now compare one B-52 bears 20650 kg of bombs, and ten Tu-95MS bear 113400 kg. Economically Tu-95MS is more effective.

PS: It reminds me dispute about modern diesel submarines.

Bella

Then if that's the case, of being cheaper, maybe the U.S. should start to consider building old WWII bombers to cut costs!

Sinister

You obviusly don't understand the concept of two ALMOST SIMILAR bombers in capability but one is much cheaper do you?

Bella

WHAAAT?? You mean the B-52 compared to the Russian bomber??

By the way, I really don't care if they're similar or not! I was just stating that the Russian bomber looks like something out of WWII.
Is that a problem to you?
I also stated that, if prop planes are "So unbelievable", maybe the U.S. should start building more of them.
Do you agree? Answer my questions before you make sarcastic remarks!

Bella

Real quick......If your talking about how the B-52 is comparable to the TU-95, I do have some few stats that I know.

TU-95:

Range- 9,100 to 9,500 miles
Speed- 550 mph to 575 mph
Surface Ceiling- 39,000 feet
Payload- 44,090 lbs

B-52

Range- 10,500 to 12,000 miles
Speed- 640 mph to 670 mph
Surface Ceiling- 50,000 feet
Payload- 70,000+

As we all know, figures differ everywhere, but when it comes to war, I would like my bombs, and not nuclear, their faster, higher, and with greater range than anyone else.
Plus, a bomber that flies like a 1970's-2000 aircraft at an altitude of 39,000 feet can be taken out pretty easy.
I'm not a military professional, but I'm going to have to assume that even a shoulder fired rocket could hit the T-95.
I might be wrong!!......And for that I apologize!
Shoot! Just look at how hard the Russians and Russian equipment had with the SR-71!
No surface to air missile or fighter could even intercept it....

zenon

There have been so many similar cases already just have to get used to it.

Sinister

-As you already posted yourself where exactly does the B-52 have a huge advantage? They are pretty much the same , plus the Tu-142 is a very usefull platform for naval activity.
-Whats with faster and bigger range weapons??? Try Kh-22 or Kh-55 variants of Bears and you got a bomber with supersonic or 3000km range cruise missiles where exactly do yours compare to? , now tell me if that doesn't sound usefull to you? Even without them , even without anything but simple bombs you got yourself a strategic bomber that nobody but Russia or the USA has , and strategic bombers have prooven themself to be everything but useless.
-Old bomber? the bombers have been upgraded several times and they are far from beeing old , same goes for B-52 , you got a bomber that was created several decades ago but all the versions are upgraded to very modern standards and are not the 50's bombers anymore
-What are you talking about?? no man portable anti air systems can reach 39,000 feet

To other ppl im not comparing B-52 and Tu-95 because B-52 is better overall in my opinion but the Tu-95 does not fall that much behind too call it useless , and I suggest you go read more articles on the Bear because you don't seem to know much about it calling it useless and bad.