Tupolev-95 Bear

jouni

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
3,900
Likes
1,138
Nice plane and so loud that NATO used underwater listening buoys to find and track them...
 

gadeshi

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
9,223
Likes
6,632
Nice plane and so loud that NATO used underwater listening buoys to find and track them...
Yeah, and this is solvable by complete remotorization only.

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
  • Tupolev-95 was used to test the Soviet Thermonuclear Bomb, called the Tsar Bomba.
  • Tupolev-95 has contra-rotating propellers whose tips can reach supersonic speeds.
  • Tupolev-95 is powered by Kuznetsov NK-12 engines, which was believed to have been built with contribution from German engineers led by Ferdinand Brandner. However, the Kuznetsov Design Bureau was headed by Nikolai Dmitriyevich Kuznetsov, who was originally a copper-smith, thus being somewhat true to his name, Kuznetsov.
 

gadeshi

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
9,223
Likes
6,632
There are 3 modern variants of main Tu-95 family:
  1. Tu-95MS-6 (6 x Kh-55SM/Kh-65/Kh-555/Kh-101/102/105 internally on 6-round rotary launcher) - the oldest one, restricted by US/USSR treaties. Undergoes modernization to MSM standard.
  2. Tu-95MS-16 (6 x Kh-55SM/Kh-65/Kh-555/Kh-101/102/105 internally on 6-round rotary launcher and 10 more externally on 2 and 3 round wing pylons) - the current one, beyound outdated treaties. Undergoes modernization to MSM standard.
  3. Tu-95MSM (armed the same as MS-16) - a newest one with completely new radar, ESM/ECM suite, FLIR, FCS augmentations and new communication suite.









The rest is here:
http://www.redstar.gr/Foto_red/Ru/Aircrafts/Tu_95MSM.html
 

jouni

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
3,900
Likes
1,138
Would a death delivered by a newer, improved, hexier, western style, stealthy, advanced plane make you happier? :devil:
This flying around with Bears is just a stunt for domestic Russian audience, who every night watch at tv proof of their "new" superpower status. In real life those bears are in a suicide mission flying in western European airspace. As a plane it is nice though, every 12 year old boys dream when they build model planes.
 

gadeshi

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
9,223
Likes
6,632
@jouni, you are ignorent fool.
There were no even single Tu-95 flight in NATO airspace, allof them were in neutral international airspace, mostly over the seas. There is a nuclear forces usage strategy or doctrine, it calls Escalation Theory. The first step in this doctrine is flag demonstration which you have seen near NATO borders.
In real day to day combat duty flights or real combat situation Bears will fly over the Russian soil or over the North Pole or over the Athlantic/Pacific oceans far from US fighters or AD systems ranges. Kh-101/102 ALCMs allow them to make launches being far from US shores, because they have 5000km range.
If you will take your ass into your hands and search Internet (not Wikipedia) for MS-16 details, you will find modern hardware (new AESA radar, similar to those modified Ka-27 has, new ESM/ECM suites, FLIR, completely new navigation and communication systems) and software complexes in old good body. Just like B-52 but turboprop :)
Of course, it's a temporary solution before PAK DA will take its place, but why to scrap the well flying body instead of modernization?
So please, don't write supid posts here, you have done too much of them in Civil War in Ukraine topic.
 
Last edited:

jouni

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
3,900
Likes
1,138
@jouni, you are ignorent fool.
There were no even single Tu-95 flight in NATO airspace, allof them were in neutral international airspace, mostly over the seas. There is a nuclear forces usage strategy or doctrine, it calls Escalation Theory. The first step in this doctrine is flag demonstration which you have seen near NATO borders.
In real day to day combat duty flights or real combat situation Bears will fly over the Russian soil or over the North Pole or over the Athlantic/Pacific oceans far from US fighters or AD systems ranges. Kh-101/102 ALCMs allow them to make launches being far from US shores, because they have 5000km range.
If you will take your ass into your hands and search Internet (not Wikipedia) for MS-16 details, you will find modern hardware (new AESA radar, similar to those modified Ka-27 has, new ESM/ECM suites, FLIR, completely new navigation and communication systems) and software complexes in old good body. Just like B-52 but turboprop :)
Of course, it's a temporary solution before PAK DA will take its place, but why to scrap the well flying body instead of modernization?
So please, don't write supid posts here, you have done too much of them in Civil War in Ukraine topic.
Yeah, I like how Russia modernizes their ancient hardware. All modernized "bears" are state of the art of warfare, all 3 of them... ( 3 not taken literally, but as a reference of the scale of Russian armed forces modernization ).
 

gadeshi

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
9,223
Likes
6,632
So what?
USSR has its own bomber projects from Tupolev DB just after the War, they were on par with B-29. But Stalin has made absolutely right decision to copy B-29 not due to Soviet projects inferiority, but to give the russian Aircraft Industry a major boost by learning new american technologies incorporated in B-29 which had drastically great impact in the future.
 

gadeshi

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
9,223
Likes
6,632
Yeah, I like how Russia modernizes their ancient hardware. All modernized "bears" are state of the art of warfare, all 3 of them... ( 3 not taken literally, but as a reference of the scale of Russian armed forces modernization ).
Yeah, you show your ignorance without any doubts or hesitation...
You should learn Russian official reports first and wright post second, in my modest oppinion.
 

jouni

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
3,900
Likes
1,138
Yeah, you show your ignorance without any doubts or hesitation...
You should learn Russian official reports first and wright post second, in my modest oppinion.
I am sorry, I do not want to insult you or derail this great thread. I just cannot take any threads of Russian strategic bomber forces seriously, but with humor...knowing from experience how effective they were in real life and what kind of reports were given to higher command from pilots. If you want to entertain yourself and get a good laugh, you might want to study that.
 

Global Defence

Articles

Top