@FOXHOUND26 Oh of course the Russians are broke.
Issue is that the B-52 and Tu-95 are pretty much the best you can have for what they do. They’re the horseshoe crabs of the military aircraft world. That, or the DC-3, though even those are slowly going extinct.
@GuardianAerospace much less bomb load, somewhat slower. Range is worse, notably.
They’re both the same kind of plane. Stand-off platforms that can carry a ton of stuff.
Of course, this is going off the assumption that both are being operated by superpowers. Post 1991 it’s pretty obvious which is the vastly better plane because only one can actually be used.
The fact that neither looks likely to die (or, at least, die for reasons other than their operator dying) is a testament to how timeless they are.
When the USA and the SU inevitably clash over the wastes of Venus, they will be there.
@GuardianAerospace no they literally do not have the money to make more they have a few already made if they could make more they’d be using them in Ukraine
@OpenHere Lmao yea ur right but the B1B Lancer program wasn’t introduced in 1985. The Tu95 Bear was introduced in 1956. Almost 30 years apart, so I am comparing it today with modern standards. But you are right in the way that you are describing it.
The Tu-95 is a bit less capable than the B-52, but it's the same class of plane. It's loud, but not slow, at least not seriously so compared to the B-52.
The tires is just a stupid point. No shit it doesn't do anything, that's the Russians being morons. Any aircraft will get destroyed if it gets hit on the ground, and I HIGHLY doubt the Russians ever intended to actually take off with tires strapped to their planes.
Both are standoff platforms, and they're not exactly going obsolete. The Tu-95 is mostly just screwed by the fact its operator is backwards and in serious decay.
As for the Tu-95 it would be unfair to assume its engineering was completely out of date but if you had a second thought, a lot of bombers up until the latter half of the last century were vulnerable to just about any form of air defense.
The turboprops on their own are by a measure, fast enough to get whatever payload they have on target, but of course it’s 2024 and I’m betting all weapons are standoff so it wouldn’t make a difference really.
Comparing it with the B-1 lancer is more or less comparing a carrot to an onion, where each have a specific niche suited to their respective airframes.
Nonetheless the Tu-95 is indeed a very dated aircraft.
The B-1 is cool, but its higher turn around time and maintenance leaves the B-52 to be the mainstay of USAF bomber fleet. It still does the conventional bombing job just as well as it did 50 or more years ago.
The B-1 looked like a great replacement for it but it was to be, rather just low level interdiction due to its higher speed.
On top of that, unlike the B-52, they have a retirement date set.
@WisconsinStatePolice you’re right but the B1 can be refueled in the air. The b52 is also one of my favs but to me the b1b just stands out. The tu95 really doesn’t stand any kind of chance. It would be detected and neutralized before it would get within firing range. And yes i do think the b1b lancer is a very pretty plane. The 1011 doesn't really seem too astounding though but still looks nice.
In a meek defense of the B-52 (my beloved), and to an extent the TU-95 as well, these platforms have long range and extremely high endurance. This allows it to take off from Mississippi, fly across the word, and drop a few tomahawks (or, even better, stand-off stealth missiles) from several hundred miles away from the target while hiding in a cloud of jamming. Sure, they don’t stand a chance against modern air defenses or fighter aircraft, but they aren’t trying to merge with them either. They have their advantages and disadvantages. Warfare is all about countermeasures upon countermeasures.
Just my 2 cents. Idk
.
And now my main point: if you think the B-1 is sexy, check out the Hawker Siddeley Type 1011 concept
@Graingy but heres the thing, yes the B52 is good but doesn’t have the speed or survivability in heavier circumstances. I almost started laughing when I heard the term, “Tu-95”. The thing looks like it is stuck in 1947. It still has turboprops for some weird reason, the engineers must’ve thought, “hmm, I am definitely 100% positive a turboprop bomber that wont stand a real chance against modern fighters within 20-30 years of the first deployment will be a great idea compared to a jet bomber with engines to be refined further in the years to come!” The Tu-95 literally needs to have tires strapped to its wings and fuselage to stop any missiles from causing any damage over Ukraine. The tires don't even help they just contribute to drag, limit maneuverability and evasive maneuvers, make it heavier, pose a hazard to pretty much everything because if it is hit by a missile or whatever the flammable rubber and structural integrity side effects the tires bring just make it an easier target. Can’t believe they actually think tires are effective defensive measures lmao. (Btw I don’t want to cause a debate, I am just talking about my opinion backed up with factual evidence and stuff, dont take it too seriously :D)
@TalonTheCRTguy does the T-38C Talon have variable sweep wings, internal weapons bays, heavy bombing capability, low radar visibility, and nuclear capability?
just my opinion, ;) don’t take it too seriously if you simp for the Tu160
@FOXHOUND26 Tu-95 with propfans.
It still has the original contraprops, it just has propfans on the back too.
Because it wasn't loud enough before.
@Graingy true but they could do with a better long range bomber
@FOXHOUND26 Oh of course the Russians are broke.
Issue is that the B-52 and Tu-95 are pretty much the best you can have for what they do. They’re the horseshoe crabs of the military aircraft world. That, or the DC-3, though even those are slowly going extinct.
@GuardianAerospace much less bomb load, somewhat slower. Range is worse, notably.
They’re both the same kind of plane. Stand-off platforms that can carry a ton of stuff.
Of course, this is going off the assumption that both are being operated by superpowers. Post 1991 it’s pretty obvious which is the vastly better plane because only one can actually be used.
The fact that neither looks likely to die (or, at least, die for reasons other than their operator dying) is a testament to how timeless they are.
When the USA and the SU inevitably clash over the wastes of Venus, they will be there.
@GuardianAerospace no they literally do not have the money to make more they have a few already made if they could make more they’d be using them in Ukraine
@TalonTheCRTguy does look badass though and lives up to the reputation
@GuardianAerospace is the B1 literally the best USAF jet ever designed??? Nope
@FOXHOUND26 its not just that, they lack the technology to make one that can now compete with the West
@Graingy I said what I said the Russians don’t have enough money to get a new bomber they can’t even produce the Su-57
@OpenHere Lmao yea ur right but the B1B Lancer program wasn’t introduced in 1985. The Tu95 Bear was introduced in 1956. Almost 30 years apart, so I am comparing it today with modern standards. But you are right in the way that you are describing it.
@Graingy a bit less is an understatement
We can tell from your profile picture
@FOXHOUND26 Pardon?
The Tu-95 is a bit less capable than the B-52, but it's the same class of plane. It's loud, but not slow, at least not seriously so compared to the B-52.
The tires is just a stupid point. No shit it doesn't do anything, that's the Russians being morons. Any aircraft will get destroyed if it gets hit on the ground, and I HIGHLY doubt the Russians ever intended to actually take off with tires strapped to their planes.
Both are standoff platforms, and they're not exactly going obsolete. The Tu-95 is mostly just screwed by the fact its operator is backwards and in serious decay.
As for the Tu-95 it would be unfair to assume its engineering was completely out of date but if you had a second thought, a lot of bombers up until the latter half of the last century were vulnerable to just about any form of air defense.
The turboprops on their own are by a measure, fast enough to get whatever payload they have on target, but of course it’s 2024 and I’m betting all weapons are standoff so it wouldn’t make a difference really.
Comparing it with the B-1 lancer is more or less comparing a carrot to an onion, where each have a specific niche suited to their respective airframes.
Nonetheless the Tu-95 is indeed a very dated aircraft.
The B-1 is cool, but its higher turn around time and maintenance leaves the B-52 to be the mainstay of USAF bomber fleet. It still does the conventional bombing job just as well as it did 50 or more years ago.
The B-1 looked like a great replacement for it but it was to be, rather just low level interdiction due to its higher speed.
On top of that, unlike the B-52, they have a retirement date set.
@GuardianAerospace 98% Tu-95 trash talk, 2% B-52 survivability
bib
@WisconsinStatePolice you’re right but the B1 can be refueled in the air. The b52 is also one of my favs but to me the b1b just stands out. The tu95 really doesn’t stand any kind of chance. It would be detected and neutralized before it would get within firing range. And yes i do think the b1b lancer is a very pretty plane. The 1011 doesn't really seem too astounding though but still looks nice.
@Graingy its being outlived by the Tu-95 because the russians are broke
In a meek defense of the B-52 (my beloved), and to an extent the TU-95 as well, these platforms have long range and extremely high endurance. This allows it to take off from Mississippi, fly across the word, and drop a few tomahawks (or, even better, stand-off stealth missiles) from several hundred miles away from the target while hiding in a cloud of jamming. Sure, they don’t stand a chance against modern air defenses or fighter aircraft, but they aren’t trying to merge with them either. They have their advantages and disadvantages. Warfare is all about countermeasures upon countermeasures.
Just my 2 cents. Idk
.
And now my main point: if you think the B-1 is sexy, check out the Hawker Siddeley Type 1011 concept
@FOXHOUND26 … (I mean I don't want to fight against that it’s good enough, Ill take it)
@Graingy but heres the thing, yes the B52 is good but doesn’t have the speed or survivability in heavier circumstances. I almost started laughing when I heard the term, “Tu-95”. The thing looks like it is stuck in 1947. It still has turboprops for some weird reason, the engineers must’ve thought, “hmm, I am definitely 100% positive a turboprop bomber that wont stand a real chance against modern fighters within 20-30 years of the first deployment will be a great idea compared to a jet bomber with engines to be refined further in the years to come!” The Tu-95 literally needs to have tires strapped to its wings and fuselage to stop any missiles from causing any damage over Ukraine. The tires don't even help they just contribute to drag, limit maneuverability and evasive maneuvers, make it heavier, pose a hazard to pretty much everything because if it is hit by a missile or whatever the flammable rubber and structural integrity side effects the tires bring just make it an easier target. Can’t believe they actually think tires are effective defensive measures lmao. (Btw I don’t want to cause a debate, I am just talking about my opinion backed up with factual evidence and stuff, dont take it too seriously :D)
@TalonTheCRTguy does the T-38C Talon have variable sweep wings, internal weapons bays, heavy bombing capability, low radar visibility, and nuclear capability?