Tu-95 "Bear": 66 years in the sky

In recent years, a joke has been circulated in the ranks of the US Air Force: “When my grandfather flew an F-4 Phantom II fighter, he was sent to intercept the Tu-95. When my father flew the F-15 Eagle, he was also sent to intercept the Tu-95. Now I fly on the F-22 Raptor and also intercept the Tu-95. In fact, there is no joke in this. Soviet / Russian turboprop strategic bomber Tu-95 (NATO codification: Bear, "Bear") real aviation long-lived, who has been in the sky for 66 years, which is even more than the planned retirement age for Russian men, who is trying hard to push through the government.

Tu-95 - the plane is really respectable, but at the same time it is still the most useful. In addition, the Tu-95 is the fastest in the world of aircraft with screw engines and the only serial bomber and rocket carrier equipped with turboprop engines on the planet (at the moment). An experienced prototype of a renowned strategic bomber made its first flight on 12 November 1952 of the year. In November, 2018 will mark 66 years from the moment this aircraft first flew into the sky. Outstanding result for aircraft industry.

Today we can say with confidence that the "eternal" Tu-95 bomber has already become a real legend. The aircraft is still in demand and effective, and this is in the era of constantly updated aviation technology. A giant plane with turboprop engines capable of easily traveling more than 10 thousands of kilometers with 12 tons of bomb load on board appeared after the top leadership of the Soviet Union set out to develop a bomber capable of striking American ground targets in 1951. The plane was already ready for 1952, the first prototype took to the air in November 1952. Initially, NATO did not attach much importance to this bomber, considering that in the age of jet aircraft the machine would quickly become outdated.

Everything changed in the 1961 year, when the “Tsar Bomb” was dropped from the Tu-95 bomber. The shock wave from the explosion of this thermonuclear munition with a capacity of more than 50 megatons in TNT easily demolished airplanes, and the nuclear mushroom formed after the explosion rose to an altitude of 60 kilometers. Light radiation from the explosion caused third-degree burns at a distance of 100 kilometers from the epicenter. Observers who were at the station in 200 kilometers from the explosion suffered from cornea burns.

The explosion of this Soviet bomb became an event that shook the world, at the same time the Air Force of many countries paid close attention to the strategic bomber Tu-95. In the Soviet Union, in turn, they intimidated the NATO states, spreading information that Tu-95 planes began to make patrol flights beyond the borders of the USSR. As soon as the Russian “Bear” appeared on the radar, foreign air forces immediately raised planes to intercept and escort them. From 1961 to 1991, this happened so often that the pilots of many armies simply got used to the Tu-95, and the interception of these aircraft became a routine, many even began to be photographed against their background.

Moreover, the potential of the bomber was used not only in long-range aviation, but also on navy. Especially for the USSR Navy, the Tu-95RC (reconnaissance and target designation aircraft), as well as the Tu-142, a long-range anti-submarine aircraft based on the Tu-95RC, were designed and built. This modification was supposed to be responsible for the fight against enemy submarines in the open sea. Specially for him, anti-submarine aviation missiles of the air launch APR-1, 2, 3 were created, and the aircraft was also the carrier of anti-ship missiles X-35.

The Cold War, which ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, left the patrol flights of the Russian “Bear” in the past. NATO air forces again recalled this cumbersome bomber only in 2007, when Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that the Russian armed forces would again conduct air patrols outside their country's borders. So for the veteran Tu-95 began a new round of active military service.

In 2014, the Canadian Minister of Defense said that every year in the Arctic, Canadian Air Force planes intercept from 12 to 18 Russian strategic bombers. To intercept Russian aircraft often rise and Japanese fighters. These flights periodically cause protests from Japan and the United States. The last time the fighters of the Japanese and South Korean Air Forces rose to intercept the Russian Tu-95MS missiles in July 2018. The Russian Defense Ministry reported that the planes made a planned flight over the neutral waters of the Yellow Sea and the Sea of ​​Japan, as well as the western part of the Pacific Ocean. At certain stages of the route, they were accompanied by F-15 and F-16 fighters of the Air Force of South Korea and Mitsubishi F-2A fighters of the Japanese Air Force, clarified in the Russian defense department. And the 12 of May 2018 of the year to intercept the Russian “grandfathers” over Alaska, the US Air Force already sent its most advanced aircraft at the moment - the X-NUMX-generation F-5 fighters, who were forced to “escort” Russian missile carriers.

For a long time, the most advanced model of the bomber was the version of the Tu-95MS (Tu-95MS-6 and Tu-95MS-16) - the aircraft carriers of X55 cruise missiles were built serially with 1979 of the year. This model is an all-metal monoplane with a mid-wing and a single fin. The aerodynamic layout chosen by the designers of the Tupolev Design Bureau provided the aircraft with high aerodynamic characteristics, especially at high flight speeds. Improved flight performance of the aircraft is achieved due to the large elongation of the wing, which corresponds to the choice of the angle of its sweep, as well as a set of profiles along its span. The T-95MS rocket carrier powerplant includes four NK-12MP turboprop engines with coaxial four-blade AB-60K propellers. Fuel reserves are stored in 8 hermetic compartments of the wing box and in 3's soft tanks located in the rear fuselage and center section. Refueling is centralized; there is also a fuel receiver bar on the aircraft, which allows refueling of the bomber directly in the air.

The Tu-95 was built serially from the 1955 of the year, at the same time it began to enter service with parts of the USSR long-range aviation. Together with the Myasishchevsky M-4 and 3M, the Tu-95 strategic bomber for several years until the launch of the first Soviet-made intercontinental missile systems on combat duty in the nuclear confrontation between Washington and Moscow. The aircraft was produced in different versions: Tu-95 bomber, Tu-95K bomber, Tu-95MR strategic reconnaissance aircraft and reconnaissance and target-targeting aircraft for the Soviet Navy - Tu-95RC. At the end of the 1960-s, after a deep modernization of the design of the Tu-95, the long-range antisubmarine defense aircraft Tu-142 was created, which in 1970-80-s passed a very difficult path of further development and modernization. The plane still remains in service with the aviation of the Russian fleet. On the basis of the Tu-142M at the end of 1970 and the beginning of 1980-s, the Tupolev Design Bureau designed a strategic bomber carrying the carrier of long-range cruise missiles, the Tu-95MS.

According to the 2017, the 48 strategic bombers in the Tu-95MS version and the 12 strategists in the Tu-95MSM version are in service with the VKS of Russia. Airplanes in the Tu-95MS-16 version are being upgraded to the Tu-95MSM version with the engines being replaced with the NK-12MMM modification with AB-60T screws. This version is characterized by a complete replacement of electronic equipment, while the airframe remains the same. A new sighting and navigation complex has appeared on the plane, which allows the use of the latest Russian strategic cruise missiles X-101 (performed with the X-102 thermonuclear warhead). This air-to-surface missile, designed using the technology of reducing radar visibility, is capable of hitting targets at a distance of 5500 km.

According to representatives of the Tupolev Design Bureau, the aircraft in the modification of the Tu-95MSM can be successfully operated up to the 2040-s, and there it is not far to the centenary anniversary. All the more surprising that the plane is still not only relevant, but also sets world records and takes part in combat missions. So 5 July 2017, the Russian strategic missile carriers Tu-95MSM, departing from the Engels airbase, flew to Syria with air refueling and launched a missile attack on the command post and militia stocks of the IG terrorist organization banned in the Russian Federation. For the strike used the latest Russian strategic cruise missiles X-101, the attack was made from a distance of about 1000 km to the target.

Earlier, on July 30 2010, the Tu-95MS strategic bomber set a world record of non-stop flight for mass-produced aircraft. Two Tu-95MS, which have long been called “Bears” at NATO, patrolled the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific Oceans, and the Sea of ​​Japan for 43 hours. In total, the aircraft flew during this time about 30 thousands of kilometers, four times to refuel in the air. The 40 flight hours were initially announced, which in itself was a world record, but the crews of the aircraft surpassed themselves. In addition to working out the assigned tasks, the Russian military pilots checked another factor - the human one. 43 hours without landing are three full-fledged transatlantic flights, while a military aircraft is far from a passenger liner in terms of convenience and comfort. As a result, neither the technician nor the people failed.

Information sources:
https://inosmi.ru/military/20180723/242797019.html
http://www.tupolev.ru/tu-95ms
http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=381821&cid=7
Open source materials

Comments

[Evgenijus]

I am not an aviator, but impressions from the Tu-142 plane are in my memory. I was on a flight in the winter in a blizzard. It's just some kind of monster, not a bear, Serpent Gorynych. From the working screws, they bent to the ground the tops of the birch trees that were planted around the parking lot. The crew of the aircraft itself from the wings and the fuselage frozen tarpaulin, because it was in the dashing 90-e, the squadron personnel was almost absent. Pilots heroes, looking at their work, I thought, as they did not run away from the airfield at that time. There can be no talk of any comfort in an airplane, for this comfort is absent.

[anjey]

Here you have the Soviet era, which more than laid the resource and safety margin in the Tu-95. Glory to the scientists and designers of that wonderful time, working not for Salvage but for the sake of honor and prestige of the Motherland ...

[dumkopff]

Americans about the same time more than laid the resource and margin of safety in the B-52.

[anjey]

The carcasses of engines are more economical and reliable at high altitudes, they are turboprops and not purely reactive, as on the B-52 ...

[IImonolitII]

Well, the B-52 is not purely reactive, but turbojet. We made a choice in favor of turboprops, because there were no and were not expected reliable turbojets.

[Aviator_]

8 engines on the B-52 from the Americans - this is from hopelessness. And cars of the same class.

[anjey]

Yes, of course, turbojet, excuse me ... and ours took German developments as the basis for engines, so the echo of the war ....

[konstantin68]

Quote: IImonolitII

proven reliable turbojet was not and was not expected.

Not this way.
It was just that at that time the focus was on the maximum flight range in order to "reach" America. 95 made it possible to reach even the south and west coast.

[nikoliski]

However, this did not stop the B-52 from flying around the globe (with refueling). In general, if I chose an American from these two “starters”, judge for yourself - Tu-95 will take a maximum of 10 x-55 on board (tu-160-12 pieces ) a b-52 as many as 20 tomahawks of the same range, and against the ground in a local war, the b-52 dropped bombs on Vietnam, and the Tu-95 honestly somehow can’t imagine in that vein, it’s at least to go above 10km when fully loaded bombs on turboprops can? if not, then it is easier to get it from the ground (by the way in Afghanistan, the su-25 climbed like a relatively safe 5-6 km, only from the nearest mountains they were "removed" from MANPADS) Yes, and the practical ceiling of the B-52 is 5 km higher, in addition, the maximum bomb load of the Tu-95 is 12 tons of bombs and that of Amer is 31 tons.

[anjey]

When I was in aviation, the Tu -95 was a purely strategist, the x-55s were imprisoned under nuclear warheads, one, two enemy air defenses, already behind the eyes, a pair of New Yorks from the bush ....

[nikoliski]

New York is a huge metropolis, to wipe it off the face of the earth, let's turn on arithmetic - the city’s area is 1215 kilometers, a nuclear warhead of 200kt has a radius of destruction of about 10km (but this is only for one-story houses, concrete buildings no further than 6km, otherwise they will remain standing), i.e. thus, one warhead creates a destruction field (except for the metro it will stand during an air explosion, and if the explosion is ground-based, then the destruction radius will fall sharply) over an area of ​​100 square kilometers, so in order to completely destroy New York, you need 12 warheads , but considering that the X-55 is a subsonic missile, and the US Navy carrier groups “graze” in the Atlantic, in order for these 12 missiles to fly to New York, at least a hundred cruise missiles with 10 bombers must be fired, in addition, ships are constantly patrolling in front of New York itself with air defense systems and fighters (those also easily shoot down subsonic cruise missiles), so the number of missiles needs to be doubled (and in order to launch such a number of missiles we need to send most of our strategists there, is it really possible for them to fly unnoticed past the UK ?) In general, I agree with the experts who said that in the current conditions, if a war starts, the Tu-95s will be shot down without reaching the launch line.

[anjey]

In Hiroshima, from 20 kt, about 200 thousand people died, as you noticed, modern charges are much more powerful, you mentioned 200kt, a simple, albeit cynical progression and already millions of victims ...

[anjey]

Yes, with an x-55 and a range of 2500 km, there is a big risk of being shot down in neutral waters, before hitting an enemy’s continent, now there is an x-102 with a declared 5000 km range and these tasks are more realistic with these missiles ...

[nikoliski]

You and I just talked about New York, and if you don’t get hung up on the East Coast, then you can try to attack for example Guam or Guavai (if you go further into the Pacific Ocean, then the Tu-95 immediately take ESR to escort such that as if a soccer field is flying and buzzing )

[anjey]

Having entered through the North Pole, it is possible to actually take out the air defense of Canada and the USA ..., for New York ICBMs we will leave ..., the heads of the General Staff of the Ministry of Defense are big, but already without us, everything was invented a long time ago and in advance ...

[nikoliski]

Canada is a huge country (the width from the extreme northern points of the borders will probably be about 5000 km) it is necessary to enter its airspace to launch missiles, but they have air defense systems on the borders, they patrol f18, suppose they succeeded in launching, along the whole way ( 5000km for x-101) with a speed of 0.8 mach is about 1000 km h) fly 5 hours through Canada’s rocket, it can be shot down many times (not without reason the Americans keep Avax for this purpose - they even see cars on the freeway, not that missile) I think, of course, to Chicago from a missed hundreds of missiles 2-3 reach (Uch Since the subsonic missile is being shot down even by ZSU Vulkan), it’s peacetime again, and if we are ready for war, we don’t know where the patriots will put extra and so on, maybe they won’t give a strike right away on Ukrainka (Tu-95 base on the Far East ) the trident will strike, so all the same I think a bad world, better than a good quarrel.

[nikoliski]

80 died directly from the explosion, the rest then died without knowing anything about radiation, drank, slept there, wore radioactive things, eventually cancer and death, now people are smarter and give drugs against radiation sickness, in addition, a thermonuclear explosion is cleaner in terms of radioactive contamination of the area, but still I think from every 000kt 200 warheads in New York they will die instantly, given a population of more than 200 million for all, more than 8 warheads are needed (there are usually hundreds of thousands in the subway, consider a bomb shelter)

[anjey]

And who told you that 1 Mgt in the Kyrgyz Republic does not fit .....?

[nikoliski]

no one said, just up to 600kt standard warheads go, the megatonka is too large, another aerodynamic drag means a different speed and range (if you can cram at all, into the drum that is on the Tu-160) I read a clever article here, what's the point of wetting the city ? military goals need to be destroyed, if only, otherwise we’ll destroy a hundred cities (like Germany to us in the war) and American bases will remain, and all over the world, and we already have an empty nuclear arsenal, and what will happen then?

[anjey]

The nuclear warheads for the RC are not so large in size, 1m x 0'5m ..., and you do not need to push anything into the drum, they hang the KR on it ...

[nikoliski]

by the way, a table of the range of defeat by a nuclear explosion, otherwise many cap-bombers for some reason are sure that nuclear weapons are a panacea for all ills

[anjey]

For the removal of enemy air defense, nuclear warheads with a reduced charge are well suited, this switches the power of the warhead itself, from 3 to 200 ctn, without changing its size ... if a serious mess starts with the Yankees, by. little things will not have to be exchanged, they won’t spare us, ask the Japanese if they will surrender immediately, let them feed ..

[svp67]

In recent years, a joke has been circulated in the ranks of the US Air Force: “When my grandfather flew an F-4 Phantom II fighter, he was sent to intercept the Tu-95. When my father flew the F-15 Eagle, he was also sent to intercept the Tu-95. Now I fly on the F-22 Raptor and also intercept the Tu-95.

So our pilots may well joke that "when the grandfather flew the MiG-19, he went to intercept the B-52, the grandson flies to the Su-30 and he is also sent to intercept the B-52"

[dumkopff]

Yes. I am not a specialist, but I had the following impression: initially the machines were made to fly to the target and drop freely falling air bombs (pour adrenaline). Over time, air defense and all sorts of fighter interceptors developed and these formidable bombers became too vulnerable targets. There were attempts to make bombers capable of breaking through air defense (Valkyrie, Lancer, Tu-160). But rocket technology also did not stand still (and nuclear warheads have significantly decreased in size compared with 1952 or 1955). There were air-to-air missiles with a range of 600 (x-22 - 1968), 3000 (x-55 - 1983), and finally 5500 km (x-101). And here the advantages of the good old bombers played a role: large capacity and ability to hang in the air for a very long time. Those. this is a kind of mobile ground missile systems. During the threatened period, missiles are suspended from them and they fly through areas of combat patrol, where neither enemy aircraft nor air defense will reach.

[EnGenius]

The funny thing is that the US actually flies on 60-year-old “buckets”, since the B-52 production ceased in the mid-60s, but the last Tu-95s were launched in the 90s and continue to modify them.

[Strashila]

A wonderful aircraft concept ... which prevents using the operating experience to make a new airframe, propulsion systems. To improve the crew’s conditions, hold consultations with gunsmiths and electronic engineers, on the development prospects, not even significant changes will make it possible to get a modern aviation platform, now they are adjusting to what is ... what for strategists, what for the Navy and others.

[Zaurbek]

It will turn out a new plane ... of the T-22 type - Tu22M2. Although it is a great idea to have a long-range reconnaissance missile carrier, a command post and a missile defense system made on civilian units with a civilian resource and the ability to transplant civilian pilots. Will it be with the theater or with turbojet engine issue to the military.

[max702]

Quote: Strashila

A wonderful aircraft concept ... which prevents using the operating experience to make a new airframe, propulsion systems. To improve the crew’s conditions, hold consultations with gunsmiths and electronic engineers, on the development prospects, not even significant changes will make it possible to get a modern aviation platform, now they are adjusting to what is ... what for strategists, what for the Navy and others.

Quote: Zaurbek

It will turn out a new plane ... of the T-22 type - Tu22M2. Although it is a great idea to have a long-range reconnaissance missile carrier, a command post and a missile defense system made on civilian units with a civilian resource and the ability to transplant civilian pilots. Will it be with the theater or with turbojet engine issue to the military.

We have a beautiful aircraft with temples that are ideally suited to these requirements. Maximum takeoff weight - 270 tons, payload - 58 tons. Maximum passenger capacity - 435 people. The maximum flight range is 13 km [000]. Moreover, civil aviation does not need it categorically, and this aircraft is IL-39-96. There is a cargo option, a tanker and a command post, and why not become a bomber? Now it is planned to throw billions into PAK DA with very dubious expediency, because everyone understands there will not be any breakthroughs in air defense, but we need a platform for carrying long-range missiles, and here is the question and why do we need something highly specialized for a fairly typical task? It will be much easier to finish a bomber from an IL -400 than to make a new generation aircraft from scratch, there is no need for stealth to develop radars so fast that today there are big doubts about its effectiveness, and what will happen tomorrow when PAK YES is built (in 96 years)? Accordingly, we are increasing the capacity of the plant to satisfy all customers, and in the meantime, the design bureaus solve the problem of bringing the IL-15 to a bomber version with the possibility of refueling in the air, although again if you put the saved money on the PD-96, you can get a more interesting option for everyone. The prospect is especially due to the large series of production, plus the same spare parts and operation of the same type of aircraft ..

[Filxnumx]

And who will do it? Ilyushin residents last time designed a long-range bomber in the mid-40s, they do not have qualifications. Remodeling from IL-96 - you’ll get a new plane (even though you keep, again, ideally, the wings, plumage and landing gear), which is easier to do from scratch, but leave it as it is and then operate it from civilian airports with a 1- th class and fly exclusively on the MVL to disguise. I have nothing against the IL-96 as a passenger (the most reliable aircraft in the USSR), as a transport aircraft, as a tanker, as VzPU, but it’s never a bomber, it doesn’t have “predation”. In vain, in due time, they cut all Tu-16s: this is where there is a wide possibility of modernization. The Chinese in this business are just fine fellows, although they didn’t redo their E-6 Glider from a good life, they’ll know to install engines more economically and change avionics over time to more modern ones. Tupolev’s forces are able to revive the Tu-16 project to scale to achieve strategic qualities in range and carrying capacity, add modern avionics, stealth. The output is PAK YES, which is what they do ..

[max702]

Quote: Fil743

And who will do it?

And who will do PAK YES?

Quote: Fil743

Remodeling from IL-96 - you’ll get a new plane (even though you keep, again, ideally, the wings, plumage and landing gear), which is easier to do from scratch, but leave it as it is and then operate it from civilian airports with a 1- th class and fly exclusively on the MVL to disguise

Eee, and Tu -95 just takes off from anywhere? in fact 2-4 airdromes in the country.
And IL-96 ..

Quote: Fil743

but he’s never a bomber, there’s no "predation" in him.

Stunned claim !! In general, the task with minimum costs and maximum efficiency is to fly up to the borders of our airspace and from there launch the maximum number of missiles on the road .. Everything, from the current bomber, is nothing else needed .. Can this be done by IL-96? Probably yes ! Will it be cheaper and faster than PAK YES again YES! And the question is why reinvent the wheel when there is no money and a scooter?
Now, according to TUpolevtsi, during a certain period of their lives, they had a close relationship with the flight crew, so they unanimously wanted KB MIG and KB Tupolev, but they spoke warmly about ILs and Sushki .. Somehow I have more confidence in users of equipment, and if Tupolev Design Bureau is urged to ask to work in normal cooperation with IL, then the result should be positive for our country, they will not want to have other ways of persuading for this a serious question .. You need to understand ..

[Strashila]

the opposite option ... if previously the Tu-95 was the base for the civilian Tu-104 ... then the IL-96 should become the base for the bomber.

[Zaurbek]

There are PS90A engines, there is a control system wing ... there is a need to create a new building and equipment.

[Strashila]

When they begin to calculate the new building based on the requirements of the military ... then the IL-96 simply has nothing left to do.

[Zaurbek]

I wrote - the case from scratch ....

[Mik13]

Light radiation from the explosion caused third-degree burns at a distance of 100 kilometers from the epicenter. Observers who were at the station 200 kilometers from the explosion suffered from burns of the cornea of ​​the eyes.

Probably, this is still about burns to the retina, not the cornea.

[K-50]

Navy Day was celebrated, the next holiday is Air Fleet Day, after the holiday of the Airborne Forces, so with the upcoming holiday !!!

[BAI]

B-52 - age 63 years. Just 3 years younger. And it also seems to be serving.

[Servisinzhener]

But not quite so, the last B-52s were made in '62, further only upgrades previously made. But his peers Tu-95 has long been gone. And now Tu-95MS / MSM is flying, in which the first flight was only in '79, and the last aircraft was released in '92. And the Tu-95MS was made on the basis of the anti-submarine Tu-142, which is made on the basis of the Tu-95RC; these are some somersaults in our aircraft industry. Something this reminded the situation with the family of aircraft based on the Su-27.

[IImonolitII]

Well, as I understand it, the design of the airframe did not change, so the “based” is based on the engines and avionics of the youngest models.

[Filxnumx]

And now Tu-95MS / MSM are flying, whose first flight was only in '79.
I will say more: the assigned service life of the Tu-95MS is 35 years, so now production planes fly no earlier than 1984, and a significant part of the equipment (AO, PO, REO) is no longer produced, which fantastically complicates the second repair. this plane. Change to a more modern one - we need finance to conduct tests, and an extension of up to 40 years (in the long term) is also not a non-cash event. And the margin of safety of the design of the MS is less than that of previous models, since its operation was not planned after 20-25 years.

[Curious]

As a child, I flew on the Tu 114, one might say, practically on the Tu 95. An unforgettable experience.

[Filxnumx]

Passing a taxiing flight
On the strip the ship will freeze
On the executive, “prayer” is all on the map.
Screws - all eight - all the way
Take-off, take-off, turn, set
And we will leave all the problems there - at the start.
The route is laid by eye
We believe the navigator - once
There is no Internet here and Google is not available
And like fifty years ago
Bombers like a parade
They go to the North, so that later they leave "around the corner."

And like a "letter" our board
Escort accompanies us
That's just not in the sky orchestral copper
And somewhere in the NATO headquarters
Scrambling in a hurry -
Russian "bears" fly to the Atlantic
"Bears" fly to the Atlantic ...

Spilled coffee will burn
Chatterbox does not protect us
The weather is trash! And on the radar all the time.
And in the fuselage - "revolver"
It is produced - USSR
They would say "Yankees" that Russian roulette.
And instead of good news
"Feed" will report about the guests
A pair of adversaries will hang on the planes
They are also through
And almost into the blister for us with a wing
Such greyhounds are usually from the States.

But will not change course
Though impudent our escort
We send them ... home, to beloved ladies.
And somewhere in the NATO headquarters
They sound the alarm and everyone on the run
Russian “bears” came to the Atlantic
Came to the Atlantic "bears".

Too bad there are no roads in the ocean
And he is like a haystack to us
We need to find the damn needle in it.
And we seek risk and fear
Wave Carrier
And if we don’t find, then the whole task is useless.

And a cry: "I see, commander!"
Suddenly tear dumb ether
An iron box on the water is already visible
The admiral is cursing there
Spacing will suit and rush
And we are so happy - like little children

Swings us wings escort
Will send a report about the Russian board
And our flying neighbors will be removed.
Their headquarters will hang up
They will only argue among themselves
When the Bears Come Back to the Atlantic
The “bears” will come to the Atlantic.

We're going on a date
We will find each other with a tanker
And seven pots will come down, but we'll catch a cone
Though hard to keep the regime
We cherish every ton
And turbulence will increase our overall tone.
Our plane is buzzing charter
He remembers different places
Vietnam, Angola, Cuba and Guinea
Fathers flew there before us
But if they had given us an order
We would certainly be able to. After all, we can!

And the crew - he just could
And let fatigue knock down
But we are so happy for our little victory
What doesn’t put us to sleep at all
The garrison is not sleeping today
Bears returned from the Atlantic
The bears came home
The bears are waddling around ...
Home favorite bears

Nikolay Anisimov

[Filxnumx]

Aircraft in the Tu-95MS-16 version are being upgraded to the Tu-95MSM version with the replacement of engines with the NK-12MVM modification with AV-60T propellers.
Engines are installed on the Tu-95MSM NK-12MP Series 2 with a reinforced shaft for screws AB-60T with increased by 10% traction.

[Filxnumx]

But why didn’t you like the song about Tu-95: size or author?

[Filxnumx]

Dear author, the NK-12MV engines (4th series) were installed on Tu-95MS aircraft of the first years of production in Taganrog (now the TANTK named after G.M. Beriev). Regular Tu-95MS engine NK-12MP (1st series). NK-12MV (as well as MVM) are not manufactured by the manufacturer in Samara (PJSC "Kuznetsov"). And on the modification of the Tu-95MSM put NK-12MP (2nd series) with a reinforced motor shaft for the perception of increased thrust by 10% of propellers AV-60T (compared with standard propellers AV-60K series 05 on Tu-95MS)

[nikoliski]

The author found something to boast about, you didn’t think that another 10 years would pass and that’s all, the resource will end, they already have it (even if you change the engines, there is the concept of metal fatigue, they will fall apart when taking off) And the Tu-160 is produced to those 15 that in service, a year already for the whole thing! In addition, in 2022, the last heavy Voivode, made under the USSR, which extended the service life 2 times already, will be removed from service, what will we have besides fairy tales about “nuclear-powered rockets” and other nonsense, when in reality even Armata cannot mass-produced? by 2030, out of our entire nuclear triad, there will remain 30 strategic bombers, Topol will be completely written off (already started) most of the boats will be written off (Dolphins and the others that are at least at the pier still) will remain Yuri Dolgoruky with Maces (which fell through the tests once, so it’s not a fact that during a mass launch, everything will pass normally) several Yars, several mines in Tatishchevo with mine Topol and all? I’m afraid such a weakening can tempt China to thoughtless (or maybe long-planned) actions in Siberia and the coastal region, there Japan will finally receive the Kuril Islands, Ukraine will take up Crimea again, the Baltic states are sleeping with the Poles and they will see how the Kaliningrad region will be divided, Dagestan is where everyone day, policemen are blown up to announce the creation of an Islamic independent republic and go-go, we are losing the country! And the author as a child rejoices that raptor pilots recall their grandfathers who escorted the Tu-95, I personally am not at all ridiculous and incomprehensible to the mood of the author of the article, why rejoice? the fact that the Tu-95 on the engines of the middle of the last century can still fly and falls only once every 2 years? or the fact that the hydroacoustics on the American submarines hear the Bear flying over him as if the freight were rushing? Yes, he has EPR as a basketball court, he will be seen for hundreds of miles and then be knocked down in case of conflict, and what's the point of “patrolling” if he flies without missiles because of the danger of falling somewhere with nuclear weapons? and it’s even sadder that China will soon get the palm instead of the USSR, EVERY year strengthening the economy by 18% (despite the fact that these 18% are like our entire GDP)

[Servisinzhener]

You have gone too far in your omnipotence, especially in the fact that hydroacoustics hear the flying Tu-95 - this is generally a fierce statement. Here either the hydroacoustic is so powerful, or the plane is noisy, or the commentator hmmm ... embellishes.

[nikoliski]

I didn’t embellish anything - everything is just that, the American “suckers” the nickname of the Los Angeles submarines, have really powerful hydroacoustics, and the sound, as you know, even from air to water spreads perfectly (water is incompressible)

[anjey]

Actually, they fly to the database with military missiles ...

[nikoliski]

that is, you want to say about 3 years ago when in Siberia it seems he fell there were missiles on board?

[anjey]

if it was on the database, then yes, if the missile from the apple falls on our territory, there will be no nuclear explosion, it will simply collapse ..., there will be a small area contamination with liquid fuel and background from the base ...

[anjey]

Sometimes they are equipped with a telemetry warhead to run systems and start circuits ...

[anjey]

And sometimes .... but this is a military secret .....

[Alexey RA]

Quote: nikoliski

The author found something to boast about, you did not think that another 10 years would pass and that’s all, the resource will end, they already have it (even if you change the engines, there is the concept of metal fatigue, they will fall apart when taking off)

The last B-52 was released in 1962. The planned term of their stay in service was last shifted right up to 2040.
We are now serving Tu-95MS, which are at least 20 years younger than the "half-hour".

Quote: nikoliski

what will we have besides fairy tales about "rockets on a nuclear engine" and other nonsense

"Yars" - mine and ground. Perhaps - "Sarmatians".

Quote: nikoliski

Yuri Dolgoruky will remain with the Clubs (which fell through the tests every time, so it’s not a fact that everything will pass normally during a mass launch)

The May volley launch of 4 SLBM Bulava was successful.

Quote: nikoliski

several yars,

The last figure for the Yars is 110 deployed launchers (mines + soil).

Quote: nikoliski

Yes, he has EPR as a basketball court, he will be seen for hundreds of miles, and then in the event of a conflict they will bring him down,

The only carriers of strategic ALCMs in the NAC - “half-past” - have the same picture.
In addition, in the event of a conflict, ICBMs and SLBMs will already work out by the time strategists approach the enemy. So there will be huge holes in NORAD.

[Old26]

Quote: nikoliski

In addition, in 2022, the last heavy Voivode, made under the USSR, which extended the service life 2 times already, will be removed from service, what will we have besides fairy tales about “nuclear-powered rockets” and other nonsense, when in reality even Armata cannot mass-produced? By 2030, out of our entire nuclear triad, there will remain 30 strategic bombers, Topol will be completely written off (already started) most of the boats will be written off (Dolphins and the others that are at least at the pier still) will remain Yuri Dolgoruky with clubs, which fell through the tests once, so it’s not a fact that during a mass launch, everything will pass normally) several Yars, several mines in Tatishchevo with mine Topol and all?

You painted an enchanting picture of the degradation of Russian strategic nuclear forces. Already breathtaking. True, most of the "data" is sucked from the finger, but for an exalted audience, it’s suitable
So you write, and what will we have besides the tale of "nuclear-powered rockets"? I don’t consider it at all, but about the rest ....

Quote: nikoliski

In addition, in 2022, the last heavy Voivode, made under the USSR, which already prolonged the service life 2 times, will be removed from service, which we will have

Instead of these "Governor" we will have a new complex "Sarmat". More modern, lighter, capable of about the same as Voevoda, the launch minimum will be put on combat duty by the end of 2019 .... Starting from 2020 there will be a planned replacement of one complex with another with the modernization of silos. It’s hard to say how much about the same half of the “Sarmatians” are deployed, but I think by the year 2027 they will be replaced by 100%

Quote: nikoliski

By 2030, out of our entire nuclear triad, there will remain 30 strategic bombers,

It is possible, but if they will do the TU-160M2 the same amount per year as during the Soviet era, then by 2030 the number of strategists will be about 60 ...

Quote: nikoliski

Poplars finally written off (have already begun)

Actually, they really write off. True remark "already started" is not true. It would be more correct to write "already finished"

Quote: nikoliski

most of the submarines will be written off (Dolphins and others that even stand at the pier) will remain Yuri Dolgoruky with Clubs (who fell through the tests once, so it’s not a fact that everything will pass normally during a mass launch)

Write off. So what? These will write off, "Boreas" will deliver. The "mace" of course went hard, but did not "fall through time," as you write. Here you just distort. Other missiles, the same R-39 went even harder. Before putting into service, it flew off at the EMNIP tests 42 times. Why shouldn't the launch be completed properly? The most recent launch of the 4 Bulava SLBM was a regular operation, everyone reached the training ground ...

Quote: nikoliski

several Yars, several mines in Tatishchevo with mine Topoli and all?

Well, about the "few" YARSOV you got excited. Now they are being deployed (replacing the "Topol"). Currently, there are already about 120 of them. The replacement of Topol by Yars will end - the replacement with new Topol-M complexes will begin. By the way, "Poplar" (15ZH58) NEVER were not mine, only "Poplar-M" were and are mine, of which in the mine version we have 60 pieces. In any case, we will have the number of "Yars" and their modifications by 2030 in a fairly large number, I think somewhere under 250-300 pieces, and not in the quantity "several yars " и "several mine Topol"

Quote: nikoliski

I didn’t embellish anything - everything is just that, the American “suckers” the nickname of the Los Angeles submarines, have really powerful hydroacoustics, and the sound, as you know, even from air to water spreads perfectly (water is incompressible)

Actually, the Los Angeles type of boat name was and is "Moose"And not "Suckers"

[nikoliski]

I will be very glad if all these ideas turn into reality while they are only planned, and what will happen next no one knows, are you sure, for example, that these new boats will be completed? but the war will not start and they will not be destroyed on the slipways unfinished? when they will be accepted into service then we will exhale, also with a semi-mythical Sarmatian - do you personally believe that without the Dnepropetrovsk plant we can create the latest liquid rocket from scratch? if we create and put 80 pieces into service (to replace 80 governors), then let’s say, and plans to include in the list already are stupid, I remember planning after 1 show to release as many as 2200 armatures! then they said 200 enough, then 100, now they even advertise what a beautiful T-72 tank we have, they’ll still serve, they will do with these Sarmatians, for example, a nuclear torpedo Poseidon, we’ll be interested in its launch vehicle when it’s put into operation or it’s still being designed ? So I’ll say this - we were already strong under Brezhnev with tens of thousands of warheads, now we are weaker than 40 years ago, that’s all we have today, what will happen tomorrow — we’ll see that the opponents do not stand still — China for 10 years from a peasant country turned into a space power, making the most in m D space launches, one cement production in year 2 and a half billion tons for the construction of new roads, airports, tunnels and bridges (more cement than the US for the entire 20 th century)

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Old26

By the way, “Poplars” (15ZH58) NEVER were mine, only “Poplars-M” were and are mine, of which we have 60 pieces in the mine version.

Duc ... when the original "poplar" was made, no one could have thought that the "primer" would ever become the only serial ICBM - and would have to put light missiles into the mine. For the mines then there was a "well done" ... but he died along with Yuzhmash.

[Mcsim78]

If the TU-95 crew was offered to choose what to fly on: the Tu-95 or B-52? Which would they choose?

[Old26]

Quote: nikoliski

I will be very glad if all these ideas turn into reality while they are only planned and no one knows what will happen next

These are not plans, these are realities. The same "Yars" is already being produced in the amount of about 25-30 pieces a year (in the 2nd quarter of this year, the Strategic Missile Forces received the next 7 missiles). Similarly, there is a planned release of the "Mace", production at KMZ is prepared for the release of "Sarmat", What could hinder the implementation of the plan? The only option is the unsuccessful SLI-GLI Sarmat. But the Makeyevites have a huge experience in creating liquid-fuel rockets, though not so much mass, but there is experience. In a month or two there will be tests, already flight of this product. So these are not only plans, sky-high and ephemeral, but a real process

Quote: nikoliski

are you sure, for example, that they will finish building these very new boats? but the war will not start and they will not be destroyed on the slipways unfinished?

I’m sure it won’t start. As I try to operate on the data of serious research, and not howls in the blogosphere. And serious data suggests that the probability of war with the United States is approximately 0,5% (with China - about 5%). So they will finish building the boats ....

Quote: nikoliski

that's when they will be adopted then exhale

Unlike the “Almaty” and the SU-57, no surprise is expected here. Prince Vladimir was withdrawn from boathouse in November last year. Now it is being completed and is preparing for testing. According to forecasts, commissioning - the end of 2018 and the beginning of 2019

Quote: nikoliski

also with a semi-mythical Sarmatian, do you personally believe that without the Dnepropetrovsk plant we can create the latest liquid rocket from scratch? if we create and put 80 pieces into service (to replace the 80 governor) then we’ll say

And what, on KBYu and Yuzhmash already light wedge converged? Makeevtsy and mankind have already forgotten how to design and build liquid rockets. Then, not a single product in the world, in any of the countries of the world, begins to be created from scratch. Any design bureau has its own best practices that underlie. And why did you suddenly get the idea that the Voivode is in service with 80? For a long time there were 46, now about half. And no one is going to put into service 80 “Sarmatians”

Quote: nikoliski

and plans to include in the already payroll is stupid

Have I already included them somewhere in the payroll? Rather, you are very unsuccessfully vanging, speaking of units that will remain in service by 2030.

Quote: nikoliski

supposedly so with these Sarmatians will be,

You are most likely very far from the defense industry, since you say such a pity nonsense. If the control launch shows that everything needs to be removed from the database, then at least let the president and the government with all children and households wish for something else - the products will still be removed from service .... Even if the worst is imagined, Sarmat will not by then fully tested and ready for staging on the database

Quote: nikoliski

for example, a nuclear torpedo Poseidon, we are interested in its carrier when put into operation or is it still being designed?

This system is not interesting to me in itself. There is no sane tactical (or strategic) niche for him. And I don’t give a damn about whether its carrier will be launched soon or not at all. This system is a pre-election PR ...

Quote: nikoliski

So I’ll say this - we were already strong under Brezhnev with tens of thousands of warheads, now we are weaker than 40 years ago,

Honor you, there we are so poor, miserable and defenseless that you take us with your bare hands. So what if Brezhnev had more than 1978 thousand warheads in 25, of which almost 6000 were strategic. The United States had 1000 less, more than 24 thousand warheads, of which more than 15 thousand were strategic. By the number of strategic warheads, they exceeded us almost 3 times. Now we have 1444 strategic warheads, and they are 1350. Have we become weaker in nuclear weapons than the United States compared to what we had 40 years ago? it is necessary to consider not only their BG, but also enemy

Quote: nikoliski

China in 10 years from a peasant country has turned into a space power, making more than anyone else in the world of space launches

Well, not for 10, but for 20-25 years. Yes, China is developing dynamically, no one argues with this, but it has never done more than all space launches. On July 31, 2018, of course, he is now ahead of everyone, and over the past 10 years there have been only 2 years when he went to 2nd place. And so the stable third. Our only year was a failure - 2017, when we slipped to the 2nd place in terms of the number of launches.

Quote: nikoliski

releasing one cement per year 2 and a half billion tons for the construction of new roads, airfields, tunnels and bridges (more cement than the United States for the entire 20th century)

That's just noodles about the fact that China has produced more cement than the United States does not need for the entire 20th century. More than 10-15 years - you can still agree

[Mcsim78]

Allegedly, you know so much of everything, but call the facts noodles? Didn't it even cross your mind to verify this information?

[nikoliski]

about noodles, now I raised the data indeed for 2 years, China produced more cement than the USA for the 20th century, here is the link-http: //asiarussia.ru/news/7716/

[Andrey VOV]

Quote: Strashila

the opposite option ... if previously the Tu-95 was the base for the civilian Tu-104 ... then the IL-96 should become the base for the bomber.

that 114, you were wrong, that 16 and that 104 twins

[Old26]

Quote: McSim78

Allegedly, you know so much of everything, but call the facts noodles? Didn't it even cross your mind to verify this information?

It has arrived. And the facts, namely tables and graphs on cement production for several years, which I found just scoring this question in a search engine, does not give me reason to believe that annual production in China is equal to centuries-old in the USA

Quote: nikoliski

about noodles, now I raised the data indeed for 2 years, China produced more cement than the USA for the 20th century, here is the link-http: //asiarussia.ru/news/7716/

Nikolay! Thank you for the link, but this is not an unapplied fact. Again, some media use information, it is not known where it came from. I’ll just give you examples from statistics, unfortunately far from complete, or rather not at all complete. But in 2000, China produced 583,2 million tons of cement, the United States - 89,5, in 2001 - 595 and 91,1, respectively, in 2005 1038 and 100. In 2010 - 1800 and 92, and finally in 2012 - 2150 and 74 ..
Do not forget that the construction boom in the United States was observed more likely in 1920-1940 and then in the postwar years. China seriously began to deal with this matter not at the beginning of the century. A simple addition of these 5 years will yield almost half a million tons, and this with a drop in production from 100 million in 2000 to 74 in 2012. But we do not know what volumes were in the same 30, 40, 50, 60 years. I can agree that in 2 years, Kiat produced as much cement as the same USA, for example, for half a century, but not for a century. This is of course my IMHO. And by the way, you initially had that in one year produced as much cement as the USA in a century

[Mcsim78]

And again, how much scribble. The construction boom in 20-40? Let's say the thing is in the search engine: an article by Bill Gates (https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Making-the-Mode
rn-World), more deployed at The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015
/ 03/24 / how-china-used-more-cement-in-3-years-than
-the-us-did-in-the-entire-20th-century /? utm_term
= .f56f8121709a). You can discuss with them so that noodles are not hung on the ears.

[Alexey RA]

In recent years, a joke has been circulated in the ranks of the US Air Force: “When my grandfather flew an F-4 Phantom II fighter, he was sent to intercept the Tu-95. When my father flew the F-15 Eagle, he was also sent to intercept the Tu-95. Now I fly on the F-22 Raptor and also intercept the Tu-95.

There was even a caricature: a “phantom” with a gray beard and a wand pushes the “raptor” and points him to the “bear” - "now it's your turn to fly after him, granddaughter".

[Old26]

Quote: McSim78

And again, how much scribble. The construction boom in 20-40? Let's say the thing is in the search engine: an article by Bill Gates (https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Making-the-Mode
rn-World), more deployed at The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015
/ 03/24 / how-china-used-more-cement-in-3-years-than
-the-us-did-in-the-entire-20th-century /? utm_term
= .f56f8121709a). You can discuss with them so that noodles are not hung on the ears.

Aw, how everything is growing. First, a person writes that in a year China produced as much cement as the United States in 100 years. Then he corrects himself and says that in two years, China produced as much cement as the United States in a century. Now you propose to believe, from an article, that in three years China has produced as much as the United States in a century? How many times this figure will grow by the end of the week.
Scribble of such a plan as a fact is not worth a damn. For example, on one of the resources a release table is given for a year for 10-15 countries. It clearly shows that while China produced 1 billion 38 million tons, the United States released 100 million. And so for some years and countries. And the text, where you can write anything you want, without specific tables and graphs - this, sorry, is not a fact. Everyone loves to write and often do not bear responsibility for writing ...
There are no statistics in such articles, which means that the cost of such information is equal to or close to zero as actual material

[Mcsim78]

Yeah, the search engine has obviously nothing to do with it. China - 2,5 billion tons per year for 2 years and 1,5 for 3 years, the United States - 4,5 billion tons per century. Goofy!
Your stupid writing you yourself, and what you wrote above, supposedly understanding the issue, completely discredited.

[sailor52]

The joke was remembered:

An American, an Englishman, and a Russian argued: who has the largest military aircraft?
“We have,” says the American.
“We can load a whole tank battalion.”
“Ha,” the Englishman began, “and we can take off, having a squadron of torpedo boats on board.”
Russian thought and said:
- Here, the other day, we are flying. The commander says to the fifteenth pilot:
- Vasya, drive — in 34 — th compartment — it buzzes something suspicious there.
Well, Vasya on a motorcycle and drove. . . Two hours later, returns and reports:
- Nothing to worry about the commander! Just Boeing flew into the window, dangle around the bulb and buzzes, buzzes. .