Military Review

Why is the Tu-95 still in service: arguments and reasoning

147

The legendary Soviet and Russian strategic bomber Tu-95 in the West is called the "Bear". For more than 60 years, this wonderful aircraft has been in the arsenal of the domestic air force and still remains in demand.


“Tu-95: an old Russian bomber that refuses to land” - this is how the American publication The National Interest entitled its recent article. The enthusiasm of the Americans by the Soviet-Russian plane is more than understandable. You do not often find planes in service, the operation of which began 64 years ago, even at the end of the first decade of the Cold War. Both then and now, the Tu-95 was a symbol of the parity of the USSR / Russia and the USA. But what does the famous “Bear” owe to such attention and why is it really too early for him to land?

There are many reasons.

To begin with, the Tu-95 remains the only serial strategic bomber in the world - a missile carrier with turboprop engines. The NK-95 engine used on the Tu-12 is considered the most powerful among turboprop engines in the world.

The undoubted advantage of the Tu-95 is its lower fuel consumption than modern jet aircraft. High secrecy from SBIRS satellites designed to monitor strategic jet bombers is also crucial.

It is no coincidence that the American publication The National Interest, praising the “Russian Bear”, dissuades those who naively consider the Soviet bomber an obsolete aircraft, which has long been in the museum. Indeed, nothing is required of the Tu-95, except for the ability to fly over a long range.

The Tu-95 is armed with the latest X-101 cruise missiles, allowing the Tu-95 to strike outside the range of air defense systems. It is the modernization of weapons, combined with the ability to very long-range flight, ensure the relevance of the Tu-95, even in our time.

However, until recently, the US military considered the Tu-95 rather as a tool of nuclear deterrence, a symbol of Russia's ability to deliver nuclear strikes in the event of a global conflict. But life has shown that Americans were wrong. The Tu-95 was able to demonstrate its relevance in modern conditions thanks to the participation of the Russian Aerospace Forces in hostilities in Syria.

It was the Syrian events that showed that the Tu-95MS could well be used in modern local wars. So, on November 17-20, 2015, Tu-95MS aircraft hit Kh-55 cruise missiles at positions of the Islamic State organization banned in Russia. On November 17, 2016, the Tu-95MSM again hit Kh-101 cruise missiles at the bases of a terrorist group, and missile launches were carried out over the Mediterranean Sea.

On July 5, 2017, Tu-95MS aircraft took off from a Russian military airfield, flew with air refueling to the Syrian Arab Republic, where they again attacked the location of the Islamic State base and command. This time, the Tu-95MS hit militants from a distance of about 1000 km.

As you can see, the old Soviet aircraft, which were modernized already in our time, can be perfectly used today, and in local conflicts, which are a component of modern hybrid warfare. Replacing the "Bear" has not yet been invented, and it is not particularly needed: the "old man" quite successfully copes with his duties.
Author:
147 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Svarog
    Svarog April 22 2020 10: 21 New
    18
    As you can see, the old Soviet aircraft, which were modernized already in our time, can be perfectly used today, and in local conflicts, which are a component of modern hybrid warfare. Replacing the "Bear" has not yet been invented, and it is not particularly needed: the "old man" quite successfully copes with his duties.

    In the USA, the B-52 is also still in service .. and nothing ..
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... April 22 2020 11: 37 New
      +3
      We have bombers on average 20-25 years younger than the B-52
    2. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I April 22 2020 12: 32 New
      +2
      Quote: Svarog
      In the US, the B-52 is also still in service .. and nothing

      "Traditional" B-52 - "eight-engine"! Somehow, there were reports that in the USA they were planning to replace the twin engine engines with "single" engines, thereby "making the 8-engine" strategists "4-engine! Alas, it so happened that I had long ceased to be interested in bombers of this type ... and now I don’t remember ... the Americans realized or not their "threat" ... in my opinion, no!
  2. Doctor
    Doctor April 22 2020 10: 24 New
    +2
    It is no coincidence that the American publication The National Interest, praising the “Russian Bear”, dissuades those who naively consider the Soviet bomber an obsolete aircraft, which has long been in the museum.


    Watch out when the enemy praises you.

    The author forgot to indicate the main reason.
    Because there are no others.
    1. Sergey Valov
      Sergey Valov April 22 2020 10: 28 New
      -3
      “Because there are no others” - have you heard of the Tu-160?
      1. Doctor
        Doctor April 22 2020 10: 36 New
        +4
        “Because there are no others” - have you heard of the Tu-160?

        Not enough of them.
        1. Sergey Valov
          Sergey Valov April 22 2020 10: 40 New
          +5
          That's for sure. But the planes are so different that they do not replace, but complement each other.
          1. Doctor
            Doctor April 22 2020 10: 43 New
            +7
            That's for sure. But the planes are so different that they do not replace, but complement each other.

            Maybe I'm not special. But I think, if we had a hundred or two Tu-160s, the Bear would be sent to hibernation. laughing
            1. Sergey Valov
              Sergey Valov April 22 2020 10: 52 New
              +3
              Tu-160 is significantly less economical in comparison with Tu-95, it is initially overweight, less technological. I repeat - these aircraft complement each other.
              1. Doctor
                Doctor April 22 2020 10: 54 New
                -4
                Tu-160 is significantly less economical in comparison with Tu-95, it is initially overweight, less technological. I repeat - these aircraft complement each other.

                And why are they needed at all, and the TU-160 and Tu-95 in modern air defense and fighter jets?
                1. Sergey Valov
                  Sergey Valov April 22 2020 10: 59 New
                  +1
                  You are joking? By the way, fighters, this is one of the means of air defense.
                  1. Doctor
                    Doctor April 22 2020 11: 06 New
                    -4
                    You are joking? By the way, fighters, this is one of the means of air defense.

                    Not at all. Strategists for modern air defense systems are a desired target, and even aircraft from the last century.
                    For me, this is how to send TB-3 to bomb the rear of the Nazis in 1943 on the Kursk Bulge.

                    I’m aware of fighters, they’ll just work according to strategists regardless of species.
                    1. Sergey Valov
                      Sergey Valov April 22 2020 11: 11 New
                      +8
                      In the case of local wars, the enemy’s air defense is first swept out, then the strategists go. This is the first option. The second - strategists work the Kyrgyz Republic without entering the air defense zone. Strategists will fly where tactical aircraft cannot reach. In the event of a global war with nuclear weapons, no one except the Strategic Missile Forces is needed.
                      1. Doctor
                        Doctor April 22 2020 11: 37 New
                        0
                        In the case of local wars, the enemy’s air defense is first swept out, then the strategists go. This is the first option. The second - strategists work the Kyrgyz Republic without entering the air defense zone. Strategists will fly where tactical aircraft cannot reach. In the event of a global war with nuclear weapons, no one except the Strategic Missile Forces is needed.

                        Yes, for strategists invented tactics of application, such as you wrote.
                        But in real life, all this works only against the enemy with undeveloped air defense. And even there, an attempt to enter the zone of a large plane is very tricky, remember Georgia and Yugoslavia.

                        The Americans cling to strategists because of conservatism, they fought in World War II by flying fortresses and aircraft carriers, and continue.
                        But even in those days, the Germans managed to give them lyuli.
                        On October 14, 1943, out of 291 B-17s, 77 did not return, and 122 were damaged.
                      2. anjey
                        anjey April 22 2020 12: 01 New
                        +2
                        Strategists can also take out enemy air defenses with their missile defense, 1,2 missiles to the air defense system, the rest further to stationary strategic targets, tactics for missile defense have long been planned, a missile can use low power of nuclear warheads on land targets.
                  2. Cyril G ...
                    Cyril G ... April 22 2020 11: 40 New
                    0
                    At night, TB-3 only on the road bombed the rear of the Foshists (including on the Kursk Bulge) until 1943, inclusive, for sure.
                    1. Doctor
                      Doctor April 22 2020 11: 47 New
                      -1
                      At night, TB-3 only on the road bombed the rear of the Foshists (including on the Kursk Bulge) until 1943, inclusive, for sure.

                      But it never occurred to anyone to build a TB-1943 series in 3.
                      Po-2 also bombed. But the war was not won by Po-2.
                    2. PSih2097
                      PSih2097 April 22 2020 17: 51 New
                      +3
                      Quote: Arzt
                      Po-2 also bombed. But the war was not won by Po-2.

                      but what memory is left after them ...
                    3. rich
                      rich April 23 2020 05: 12 New
                      +3
                      Po-2 also bombed. But the war was not won by Po-2.

                      Contribution to the victory of the Po-2 plywood bomber should not be minimized.
                      Although the Pe-2s took 4-5 times more bombs at a time, the regiment dropped only 980 tons of bombs during the war. But U-2 "night witches" - 2903 tons (three times more). Plus, they carried ammunition that the Pe-2 did not take. For example, up to 2 rockets and ampoules with incendiary mixture were suspended on U-8 (their regiment dropped 26). In addition, the biplane dropped ammunition surrounded and carried partisans behind enemy lines at night, which larger planes with their long take-offs could not do.

                      Only one of the U-2 pilots (Hero of the USSR Irina Sebrova) in the Second World War made 1004 sorties - about the same as a whole air regiment on the Pe-2. Although the tonnage dumped by it was several times smaller, it is far from a fact that in terms of efficiency it lost to dozens of crews of twin-engine vehicles. And this is to take into account that this plane laid bombs much closer to the target than daytime bombers or attack aircraft.
                    4. Zementbomber
                      Zementbomber April 30 2020 00: 03 New
                      0
                      In addition, the biplane dropped ammunition surrounded and carried partisans behind enemy lines at night, which larger planes with their long take-offs could not do.

                      The P-5 and PS-84 family aka Li-2 coupled with the S-47 - welcome you! And kagorichsky not agree bully
                2. WapentakeLokki
                  WapentakeLokki April 22 2020 19: 38 New
                  +1
                  .... but you cannot expand your thought; so someone still won the Second World War .. ???
                  Py.Sy .... answer options; IL-2 ... IL-4 ... Pe-2. Pe-8 .. Tu-2..Su-2..i.t.d ...
                3. Doctor
                  Doctor April 22 2020 21: 30 New
                  -1
                  .... but you cannot expand your thought; so someone still won the Second World War .. ???
                  Py.Sy .... answer options; IL-2 ... IL-4 ... Pe-2. Pe-8 .. Tu-2..Su-2..i.t.d ...

                  IL-2, La-5, Pe-2. Then everyone else. But without these, they would not have won.
                  Well and Cobra of course.
                4. WapentakeLokki
                  WapentakeLokki April 23 2020 18: 35 New
                  +1
                  ... yeah, Cobra ... of course ... well, why then not the A-20 and B-25 ... but our pilots from the ADD were no less enthusiastic about them than Pokryshkin from Cobra
                5. Doctor
                  Doctor April 23 2020 21: 41 New
                  0
                  ..agra Cobra ... of course ... well, why then not the A-20 and B-25 ... but our pilots from the ADD were no less enthusiastic about them than Pokryshkin from Cobra

                  It's not about Pokryshkin, but quantity. They put the cobra in 7300, and about 5 released the La-10. So, the contribution to the victory is significant.

                  A-20 delivered 2700, but they worked at sea, and the fate of the war was decided on land by Ilami. B-25 860 pieces did not do the weather at all.
                6. WapentakeLokki
                  WapentakeLokki April 24 2020 19: 03 New
                  -1
                  ... well, someone was lucky .. how lucky Pokryshkin got into the part equipped with the Cobras .. and if someone thinks that our bombers and what the States supplied us is comparable .. that .. read the memoirs .. it's not because -that I hay our ash-traders ... no, I want to say ... these were Iron people ... who had to fly on Derevyannye ... aeroplans ...
                7. Doctor
                  Doctor April 24 2020 19: 47 New
                  0
                  ... well, someone was lucky .. how lucky Pokryshkin got into the part equipped with the Cobras .. and if someone thinks that our bombers and what the States supplied us is comparable .. that .. read the memoirs .. it's not because -that I hay our ash-traders ... no, I want to say ... these were Iron people ... who had to fly on Derevyannye ... aeroplans ...

                  I agree. We are not talking about people, but about the planes that made the greatest contribution to the victory. If we consider the combat effectiveness of the aircraft by the number of shot down on it, then the Cobras are beyond competition.
        2. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... April 28 2020 23: 44 New
          0
          Art, Infantry and Tanks
      2. gsev
        gsev April 27 2020 19: 28 New
        +1
        Quote: Arzt
        But the war was not won by Po-2.

        It seems that the ratio of losses inflicted to the Germans / expenses for inflicting these losses at Po-2 is the highest Soviet of the bombers. Bomber, communication aircraft, transporter. The transfer of explosives to partisans on the Po-2 is likely to have caused German rail traffic more harm than their bombing.
  3. anjey
    anjey April 22 2020 12: 23 New
    +1
    Of course, there is a great vulnerability of the Carcasses, but why do they need the Kyrgyz Republic, now their range is more than 5000 km. You can not come into direct contact with air defense systems.
  4. V Alexander Kolchin BiK
    V Alexander Kolchin BiK April 22 2020 13: 16 New
    0
    Laugh you heard about the bombing of Berlin in 1941.
    1. Doctor
      Doctor April 22 2020 13: 32 New
      -1
      Laugh you heard about the bombing of Berlin in 1941.

      Of course. And about Belov’s cavalry, too. But it was a long time ago.

      Sit in the Tu-95 now and try to bomb Berlin.
    2. AllBiBek
      AllBiBek April 22 2020 14: 51 New
      +3
      Yes for nefig to do.
      From neutral airspace in the Baltic, or from airspace over the Kaliningrad region.

      Range missiles enough in both cases.

      And in the second one, even a fighter cover is not needed, where ground-based air defense systems will cope with most of the threats without straining.
    3. PSih2097
      PSih2097 April 22 2020 17: 56 New
      +3
      Quote: Arzt
      Sit in the Tu-95 now and try to bomb Berlin.

      without problems, without even leaving the airspace of the Russian Federation ...
      X-55, X-102 to help ...
    4. Fan-fan
      Fan-fan April 22 2020 19: 24 New
      0
      no problem,

      Problems will begin instantly, since there are no more than 5 aircraft based on these aircraft. It is enough to damage the runway and the end. Or 5 nuclear charges are enough, and then the complete end of this entire aviation. Do not doubt that these airbases will be priority targets for the enemy.
    5. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... April 28 2020 23: 46 New
      0
      There are no problems with dispersal from the word at all
  • PSih2097
    PSih2097 April 22 2020 17: 49 New
    0
    Quote: Arzt
    For me, this is how to send TB-3 to bomb the rear of the Nazis in 1943 on the Kursk Bulge.

    only to send bombers without fighter cover is the height of insanity and madness ...
    1. Doctor
      Doctor April 22 2020 21: 57 New
      0
      only to send bombers without fighter cover is the height of insanity and madness ...

      Yes, and now it is also relevant and also works against strategists. Who can accompany them for thousands of miles?
      They will fly away alone and will not return back ...
  • Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. April 22 2020 12: 01 New
    0
    Quote: Arzt
    And why are they needed at all, and the TU-160 and Tu-95 in modern air defense and fighter jets?


    Rocketeers BB.
    The salvation of Long-Range Aviation was, perhaps, also the fact that by that time heavy aviation missiles for conventional and nuclear charges with a launch range of several hundred kilometers on land and sea targets were at the exit. Ripen and new means of navigation, radio countermeasures and intelligence. With such equipment, Long-Range Aviation looked already qualitatively different, corresponding to the latest concepts of warfare.


    Well, now, relatively compact long-range cruise missiles allow you to strike from unexpected directions, including from subsonic carriers that are not included in the air defense zone.
    1. Doctor
      Doctor April 22 2020 12: 20 New
      -1
      Well, now, relatively compact long-range cruise missiles allow you to strike from unexpected directions, including from subsonic carriers that are not included in the air defense zone.

      But should they be placed on such a vulnerable platform?
      Imagine that you need to hit a strategic object somewhere in the Antalya area.
      Will you lift Tu-95 from Krasnodar and launch a cruise missile from our territory, or from a corvette in the Caspian Sea?
      1. Dmitry V.
        Dmitry V. April 22 2020 12: 36 New
        +7
        Quote: Arzt
        But should they be placed on such a vulnerable platform?

        What is considered a vulnerable platform?
        Have you ever wondered why there are air command centers?
        Because the location of the air carrier is extremely difficult to calculate by reconnaissance means (only satellite) and in order to hit it, the air carrier must enter the air defense area or be within the radius of the enemy fighter aircraft (it’s not yet a fact that the fighter will be able to intercept strategic carrier, when the interceptor will be actively interfered with and disconnected from the guidance controller.
        Cruise missiles make it possible to launch from distances of 2500 km (5500 km X-101) without entering the range of air defense and interceptors.

        You yourself answered your question - is it a corvette in the Caspian Sea and is easily tracked by a satellite constellation, and after 95-6 hours the Tu-10 can be in a radius of 4000-8000 km from the airfield and perform a combat mission - this is much more universal and flexible media.

        Putting Tu-95 on the satellite constellation is a very, very difficult task. And then it will be only periodic monitoring, not permanent.
  • RwFanat_Kirov
    RwFanat_Kirov April 22 2020 23: 56 New
    0
    In the event of a global conflict, upon receipt of a command about the start of the war and, accordingly, the take-off of the TU-95 regiment with missiles, it has already completed its task: without entering the airspace of the enemy using its missiles, it is possible that this type of aircraft can cause very serious damage to the enemy with nuclear warheads
  • anjey
    anjey April 22 2020 11: 53 New
    +7
    "
    Quote: Arzt
    Maybe I'm not special. But I think, if we had a hundred or two Tu-160s, the Bear would be sent to hibernation.

    “Bears” can barrage in the air longer. Alternatively, they can be raised up to an hour “H,” with missiles with nuclear warheads, in standby mode and with the possibility of striking back.
  • Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I April 22 2020 10: 50 New
    +8
    Quote: Arzt
    Watch out when the enemy praises you.

    A chago here to be modest? The United States has B-52 ... RF-Tu-95 ... B-52-large ("heavy-duty") and subsonic; Tu-95-large ("heavy") and subsonic ... "parity"!
  • Undecim
    Undecim April 22 2020 10: 30 New
    14
    Why is the Tu-95 still in service: arguments and reasoning
    But the author did not present either arguments or reasoning. But with the regularity of the metronome, it gives out empty notes under the guise of articles under the guise of articles.
    Against the background of the creativity of such authors, requests to support the site look somewhat incorrect.
    1. knn54
      knn54 April 22 2020 16: 35 New
      +1
      There were Tupolev, Antonov. Ilyushin, Sukhoi, Kamov, Mil. Mikoyan and ALL not count.
      Who can be called today?
      Only modernization and the embodiment of Soviet ideas.
      1. WapentakeLokki
        WapentakeLokki April 22 2020 19: 47 New
        0
        ..tabur Taburetkin..but didn’t have time .. much and so ... after the armored vehicles IVECO ... would be in our Air Force. (.. sorry .. VKS ..) .. B-1 and B-2 .. .probably..
  • Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U April 22 2020 10: 32 New
    0
    Replacing the "Bear" has not yet been invented, and it is not really needed
    A powerful conclusion about "not really needed."
  • prior
    prior April 22 2020 10: 41 New
    +7
    Despite the tremendous achievements of rocket technology, no one canceled the barrel “god of war”.
    Inexpensive, but how effective.
    So with the TU-95. There is no decent, inexpensive replacement for him.
    So with the "corn", which year after year are looking for a replacement, but everything modern is prohibitive.
    1. Sergey Valov
      Sergey Valov April 22 2020 11: 05 New
      +2
      The modern is prohibitively expensive for the most part due to the unreasonable and / or increased demands of customers. Order to make the original Tu-95 from modern materials and modern equipment, and it will be cheaper than its predecessor.
    2. Dmitry V.
      Dmitry V. April 22 2020 11: 54 New
      0
      Quote: prior
      Inexpensive, but how effective.


      What is effective there besides new weapons?
      Even in the 80s, the aircraft was already considered obsolete, the Tupolevites tried to stick the defective Tu-144 into the role of a bomber - Reshetnikov shoved it off, and then the Tu-160 project appeared.
      Finally, Alexey Tupolev announced his readiness to receive us.

      Sitting in a small hall and peering at the posters hung on the stand, I was surprised to recognize the familiar features of the Tu-144 passenger supersonic aircraft on them. Really the same? His technical and flight characteristics, he did not reach the set, sinned with a low level of reliability, was uneconomical and difficult to operate. There were big troubles. Civil aviation in every possible way fenced off him.

      I wonder what will happen next?

      Alexei Andreevich, holding himself somewhat more constrained than usual, with a pointer in his hand went to the stand. The essence of his proposals boiled down to the fact that between the extended packages of engines occupying the lower part of the fuselage, bomb-bunks crashed into which rockets and bombs would be placed. Without delving into further discussion, it was obvious that, having become a bomber, this failed airliner, under the weight of ammunition and defensive weapons, will become heavier, lose its last margin of safety and all flight performance will fall down. [495]

      After about five minutes, or maybe ten, I got up and interrupted the report and said that we did not intend to consider the proposed project further, because a passenger plane designed at one time for Aeroflot’s needs, even in a new look, will not be able to get rid of its inherent properties, completely redundant in the combat version, and at the same time fail to embody the specified requirements for a strategic bomber

      The oval hall of the Tupolev Design Bureau, Alexei Andreevich, all assembled and slightly solemn, represented the preliminary design of a new bomber, called the Tu-160.

      For a minute or two, we silently peered into the calculated data of tables and graphs, examined images of technological partitions, mentally combining them into a single shape of the ship. In new, unusual shapes, he was strict and severe, although he had some portrait resemblance to the American “V-1” (however, like the previous “Tu-144” with the Anglo-French Concord).

      The reports seemed to remove any possibility of questions, but they rained down on both the general and his assistants. It was felt and seen - everything was at its limit in the calculations. But everything will creep inevitably and large, and then - and everything else. What then? Where is supersonic speed? At what lines will the range break? But aerodynamic quality is shaken, will not the variable wing geometry become a weight burden? The questions were piled up, clinging to each other, giving rise to new ones, and the answers to them did not come immediately. [498]

      I with my “team”, which grew into a mock-up, and then into the state commission for the creation of the Tu-160, did a lot of work and often worked in the design bureau. Almost every morning, the weight summary was updated: the damned weight - first by units, and then, uniting in tens of tons, crawled like the temperature of a doomed patient, and the subcontractors, in any case, most of them, who created the airborne "stuffing" and weapons systems, ashamed and not repenting, they shoved their firm heavy conglomerate of yesterday into aircraft volumes. And there are no barriers to them, since there are no competitors. Sliding and balancing, as above the abyss, TsAGI saved the initial calculations, counted and recalculated the aerodynamic characteristics, issuing next recommendations, but they again collapsed under the weight of the increasing weight.

      http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/reshetnikov_vv/04.html
      1. Skyscream
        Skyscream 9 August 2020 14: 03 New
        0
        With all due respect to you and V.V. Reshetnikov, describes the process of creating a completely new, both in concept and in technology, aviation military system. Was it different in the States? Let's remember to take with Valkyrie, which was abandoned in favor of ... B-52! Refusal from B-1A, for which there was simply no niche at that time. Only later, adapted for a low-altitude air defense breakthrough, it went into production as a B-1B. And now, but in my opinion, in general, some kind of stagnation is observed worldwide in bringing the latest technologies to the stage of mass production. Too many new bricks have to be crammed into one system, and they somehow don't fit together very well. Everything new is born in agony, and tanks and planes initially have a bunch of childhood illnesses, don't you know? F-35 and Zamvolt as an example)
  • AAK
    AAK April 22 2020 11: 09 New
    +2
    Why not continue to operate the 95th if the resources of the airframe and engine are not exhausted. In addition, as the new Tu-160s are commissioned, it is advisable to consider the possibility of re-profiling the 95s to 142s, we have a full corral with PLO. If finances are possible and the resource of the aircraft themselves will allow, then why not ...?
  • Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. April 22 2020 11: 29 New
    +2
    Well, praise the Tu-95 - it's really from poverty :)

    Even Vasily Vasilievich Reshetnikov, when he was a commander of a division and corps of long-range bomber aircraft, flying on a range record on the Tu-95, describes this episode in his memoirs “What was - was”:
    In the spring of fifty-ninth, a printed message about a new world record of flight range along a closed curve set by American military pilots on a B-52 aircraft did not flash very brightly. [429] This record stabbed me right in the soul - 14 kilometers. But this is almost a training range for our aircraft! And the Americans, as it became known from official information, before the flight hung additional fuel tanks in the bomb bay. No, they need to be besieged somehow! I rushed to the nomograms for calculating the flight range and realized that this record can not only be firmly set, but also significantly surpassed.
    The next day, while I was considering where to start, unexpectedly there was a call from Marshal Sudets:
    - Are you interested in foreign information?
    To my perplexed, but affirmative answer, he immediately with pressure:
    “So why are you sitting?” Americans all over the world got their head on record, but you can’t shut them up? I sent Taranov to you. He is already on the road. Get ready. So that was 15 thousand!
    And he hung up.
    General Viktor Tikhonovich Taranov, the main navigator of the Long-Range Aviation, I knew and loved for his open and cheerful disposition and was glad about the flight with him. As soon as he, accompanied by two more navigators, his assistants, appeared with his thick navigational briefcase, the first thing he said was that they did not waste time on the way and prepared calculations not for 15, but for 16 thousand.

    “While you were counting on the road,” I retorted his navigational enthusiasm, “I got a reachable range of 17.” We will count on it.


    They decided to fly with three ships. On two - the crews of deputy regiment commanders, magnificent, high-class pilots Nikolai Khromov and Evgeni Murnin, and on the third - mine with Taranov. They painted flight charts and flight logs, waited for suitable weather, so as not to get confused in thunderous and powerful cumulus clouds, and went about two hours before dawn. The route lay along the Caucasus, through Central Asia, up the Lena to the Arctic, around its islands to the Kola Peninsula, to the Moscow region, Kuibyshev and to his home, to Ukraine.

    But suddenly, slightly moving away from the airfield, on the plane of Khromov, the screws of one of the engines were plumbed. Nikolai Mikhailovich had to generate fuel and return home. Murnin and I went along the planned route without deviations, dropped bombs on a passing Arctic range and, having waved 17 kilometers in 150 hours and 21 minutes, returned to our airfield ... At the final stage, when the car, having already swallowed more than a hundred tons of kerosene, was maximally lightened and reached a height of 15 thousand meters, the specific fuel consumption was negligible and much less than the calculated one.


    However, his summary:
    Gradually, our aircraft, under the weight of new equipment and weapons, began to become heavier, to surrender their flying qualities, including reducing the radius of action. But the Americans, not expecting the old age of their B-52s, renewed them, refreshed, injected, so to speak, an elixir of the second youth, replaced the wings, increased the capacity of the fuel tanks, supplied lightweight but more powerful weapons and equipped them with new fuel-efficient engines. After that, they once again went to a range record, already unattainable for our ships.

    Vasily Vasilievich commanded the long-range bomber aircraft of the USSR - he knew what he was writing about, so there was already enough ethyl pseudo-patriotic articles about the "ageless" Tu-95.
    He is and his potential is taken into account - this is the main thing.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... April 28 2020 23: 54 New
      0
      Details about the new economical engines B-52 will be?
  • Maks1995
    Maks1995 April 22 2020 11: 50 New
    -2
    Again, Pushkovsky NI is referenced.
    There is and is that such. You never know where there is.
    The propeller-driven aircraft remained somewhere and in attack aircraft, and there are new projects ...
  • Corundum
    Corundum April 22 2020 11: 53 New
    -3
    When they are already tired of declaring that Syria is an indicator of some kind of modern war ... Against the partisans who are now called terrorists. barmaley, jihadists and in general to whom if not laziness ...
    And the answer lies in the fact that the Russian Federation simply does not have enough money to chase HiTech and even more so to upgrade weapons massively. And so the military budget is under 4% of GDP.
    1. Nastia makarova
      Nastia makarova April 22 2020 15: 04 New
      0
      yeah, many howl here that this is a large military budget
      1. Corundum
        Corundum April 22 2020 20: 18 New
        -4
        If you know something that others don’t know, write, not riddles like "Yeah" !!!!))) You understand the budget can be pulled, but not pulled. the Americans are pulling their own, but no one knows how it will be with the Russian Federation, no one needs oil and gas from the Russian Federation and the wage on this is gone. Here was infa that Poland ceases to buy oil from Russia. https://www.finanz.ru/novosti/birzhevyye-tovary/polsha-otkazalas-ot-rossiyskoy-nefti-1029113363
        1. Nastia makarova
          Nastia makarova April 23 2020 11: 51 New
          0
          everyone needs both gas and oil
          1. Corundum
            Corundum April 23 2020 12: 37 New
            -2
            Everyone needs oil and gas. But they are needed already in smaller quantities and at a much lower price.
            Russia's income from oil exports in January-November 2019 decreased by 5,8 percent, from natural gas exports - by 15,4 percent, according to the Federal Customs Service of the Russian Federation.
            And this year it will be really hard ...
            Oil and gas surplus. There will be fierce competition ....
            1. Nastia makarova
              Nastia makarova April 23 2020 13: 56 New
              0
              less now. in a year more, to us what? people that at 5 bucks that at 100 no longer falls
              1. Corundum
                Corundum April 23 2020 13: 59 New
                -2
                Well, if you do not care, then maybe there is no other .. Hard times are coming. For all. For the whole Ball ...
                1. Nastia makarova
                  Nastia makarova April 23 2020 15: 36 New
                  0
                  over the past 30 years there have been so many difficult times))))
                  1. Corundum
                    Corundum April 23 2020 20: 46 New
                    0
                    Wow, especially the nineties ..
    2. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... April 29 2020 23: 58 New
      0
      At the same time, the Barmalei are quite able to find modern means of communication and tactical control, and recently EW has also been rumored to have been counted against Hephaestus. In fact, the owners of the Barmaley did not give only the SAM, and then to leave their hands untied, just in case.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Atlant-1164
    Atlant-1164 April 22 2020 12: 10 New
    +8
    living legend of the USSR Air Force ..
    1. Dmitry V.
      Dmitry V. April 22 2020 13: 25 New
      +2
      Quote: Atlant-1164
      living legend of the USSR Air Force ..


      No snot please.
      Tu-95 became obsolete in the late 70s, alteration in the Tu-95 MS extended its life.
      But lugging 8 KPs on the outside is not the best solution for range.
      The B-52H carries up to 20 missiles, including on an external sling - all the same, the difference in the mass of missiles per ton, though the range is 2 times.

      The guys are working on PAK YES - this is an occasion to rejoice.
      1. Ryaruav
        Ryaruav April 22 2020 20: 09 New
        0
        something your guys do not work very well, what yes, il-114
        1. Dmitry V.
          Dmitry V. April 23 2020 15: 26 New
          +1
          Quote: Ryaruav
          something your guys do not work very well, what yes, il-114


          How they finance - and it’s moving forward, there the guys are not “hunchbacked” too, they are interested in it :)
      2. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... April 28 2020 23: 56 New
        0
        Have you heard the Tu-95MS-16? The restriction is then negotiable
  • alex aircraft
    alex aircraft April 22 2020 12: 28 New
    +2
    Tu 95ms ceased to be released in 1992 and then because of the collapse of the Union and B 52 in 1962. so who is old?
  • iouris
    iouris April 22 2020 12: 41 New
    0
    Why in the ranks? Just because the combat aviation complex meets the requirements. What are these requirements? Who are they presented? How are they justified? From this place, slow down, please write down.
  • svoit
    svoit April 22 2020 12: 51 New
    0
    It was the Syrian events that showed that the Tu-95MS could well be used in modern local wars.

    Precisely "events", and not some kind of "local war". A local war can be called the US war in Yugoslavia, Iraq, the war on the BV, or even "the pacification of Georgia." The local war could be the actions of TU-95 in Ukraine ....
    1. WapentakeLokki
      WapentakeLokki April 22 2020 19: 59 New
      0
      ... and as for the Tu-95 in Ukraine ... it is tempting ... damn ... but ... and if they didn’t sell all their air defense to Africa, but ... our barn can leave at least from St. 200 .. (..but there..on ..ruin..they say there is also the S-300..first episodes of course ..) but ... will our old man have enough or ..no ???
      1. Corundum
        Corundum April 22 2020 20: 22 New
        -3
        If Ukrainians sold all their air defense to Africa, then who shot down the Malaysian? Or are you mistaken with Africa ....
      2. Zementbomber
        Zementbomber April 29 2020 21: 36 New
        -1
        But there .. on .. ruin .. they say there is S-300 .. of the first series of course ..

        As living on this same "Russian" laughing - I give a note: in the ranks we have S-300V1, S-300PS, S-300PT, Buk-M1 (earlier Bukov models are also available for storage) - and the little things for self-defense of firing positions of air defense systems (MANPADS, ZUSHKI). This is not counting the air defense of the SV, naval and guards. In general - the air defense / missile defense of the Kiev region - is now able to bring down even the infantry ballistic missile.
        1. WapentakeLokki
          WapentakeLokki April 30 2020 18: 41 New
          0
          ... scratch the important one ... kidney ... the trouble in the Ruin was Crimea and there was the DNI and LC ... there was a fleet .. (alas with a lowercase letter but .. was ..) there was some kind of industry .. (even air + rocket building .. was ..) can be continued but. why .. now you DO NOT HAVE THIS !!!
          1. Zementbomber
            Zementbomber 1 May 2020 22: 12 New
            0
            Ну what?
            In Russia, deindustrialization is also taking leaps and bounds steps a long, long time ago - but if you listen to it: then you have the "Land of Triumphs" rising from its knees. laughing
            “DPR” and “LPR” are not viable. As soon as they lose the tire they will cease to exist in a matter of weeks.
            But with the Crimea - much more difficult. Those. it is clear that in your hands he will not remain in any situation, but ... - will Ukraine return it to himself? Will an independent and sovereign Crimean Tatar Republic appear on its territory? Will he become a Turkish colony a la TRNC? Or in general the Gotenland vs 2.0 project will come true - but only already under the auspices of the EU ?? HZ ... - this cannot be predicted now ...
            PS The navy of Ukraine in the era of its third independence never existed (except for the marine border guard). Here is a variegated, unsystematic gathering of ships, boats and ships - yes, it did.
            1. WapentakeLokki
              WapentakeLokki 2 May 2020 15: 37 New
              0
              ... only one note .. (I don’t want it all at once ..) .. and Ruin .. is it independent ??? how long will they live without replenishment of the West .. and if you shut off your guests to work in Russia ?? .. where are they .. in Geyropu .. and they are waiting there .. huh ... so .. viability of the ruins .. Haha three times ... no .. you have the right to love your country, but .. a seal on something .. yeah .. and then someone’s cow mooed yeah ..
              1. Zementbomber
                Zementbomber 2 May 2020 16: 15 New
                0
                and Ruin .. is it independent ??? how much will live without replenishment of the West.

                I do not know for sure. But at least 1000 years - certainly. smile
                .
                and if you block your guests work in Russia ?? .. where are they .. in Geyropu .. and they are waiting there .. huh ..

                Exactly what’s in the Geyropu. The overwhelming majority of "zarobіtchan" is clearly already working in Poland. For translations - the emphasis is even more pronounced. But you - now there are no effective levers of economic pressure on Ukraine. Absolutely. Therefore, in a friendly way I recommend - humble yourself and wipe yourself off. wink For you are powerless. Well - absolutely powerless. And this is not even the fault of your Government - the map just laid down.
                and then someone's cow mumbled yeah ..

                So here I am - exactly the same thing. The main specificity of Ukraine’s difference from Russia is the viability of the former (ex. From the latter) in historical perspective.
                1. WapentakeLokki
                  WapentakeLokki 3 May 2020 15: 37 New
                  0
                  ... Well, Russia is YES .. for it is 1000 years of HISTORY, but the Austro-Hungarian project under the self-name of Ruin ... from the filing of the first Ilyich counts 100 years and then .. according to your own story, only from the 91st .. so -that .. panuvaty you have no way .. MAX to the lackeys to pshekami ... (yes you yourself wish that to your zrobitchans .. well yes on the way .. forgot the favorite entertainment of the Poles, put on the fence ukrov ... as in the glorious times when Kiev was under the Poles .. but it was .. but yes let you .. teach a point about .. in advance ...) well, and 1000 years of such a life .. it is unlikely that you’ll die out the bag ... well, or assimilate like the Prussians ... but this is your path ..
                  ..know you are tired of me .. everyone has their own truth and there are no points of contact .. so I won’t answer anymore and you .. can continue to spray yadom ... better hand it over to Euro Pharmacy ... at least get up a little ... aha
                  1. Zementbomber
                    Zementbomber 4 May 2020 20: 32 New
                    +1
                    You will be surprised and perhaps you will not even believe it - but the History of the Volyn branch of the Chervinsky family (we used to bear this surname until 1932) began precisely with the fact that the Clear King granted us the estate in Volyn in 1596 precisely for - including . - successful landing on this very notorious stake of participants in the cotton riot (in Ukrainian historical science, of course, it is known as the "peasant-Cossack rebellion" laughing ) Pouring. Where (to Volyn) my distant ancestors moved from the estate of Koributov Greater Poland, whose nobility served. So Polska od morza do morza - quite and more than suits me.
                    The "Project Ukraine" - began in the XNUMXth century - when Austria - was just a ragged and provincial, outskirts duchy of the "Holy Roman Empire of the German nation" - teach History.
                    The self-name "Ruina" is a period complicated by the interventions of civil wars in Ukraine after the death of Getman Khmelnitsky and until the beginning of the 1680s. - again, teach History.
                    PS But yes - I understand that you will continue to gnaw and foreshadow us "soon disappearance" - even when only the "Russian" last Roman "remains of you ... laughing
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek April 22 2020 13: 01 New
    0
    What kind of crew is there? 11 people?
  • Amateur
    Amateur April 22 2020 14: 00 New
    +3
    Tu-95 and Tu-95 MS - DIFFERENT aircraft. Like the Tu-22 and Tu-22 M, M2, M3. Why A.N.T did this is a big question. The last (extreme?) Tu-95 MS was launched in 1992. So they are clearly younger than the B-52.
    "Bears" of successful flights, and their crews - health!
  • L-39NG
    L-39NG April 22 2020 14: 06 New
    -3
    The Second World War ended a long time ago, but you can’t get out of history. The country "loser" stood on its feet a long time ago, with its own mind and with its own hands, and the "winner" ceased to exist and lives on purchases of machine tools, cars and technologies from the country of the loser. Or as they say - no mind, count the scoop
    1. AllBiBek
      AllBiBek April 22 2020 15: 00 New
      +3
      Did you breathe in radioactive smoke there, or is the pan so tight?
      1. Ryaruav
        Ryaruav April 22 2020 20: 13 New
        0
        Yes, this is more likely from the Czech Republic where our monuments are demolished
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 April 22 2020 14: 37 New
    -2
    Quote: March 53rd
    Why didn’t new Tu-95s replace the Tu-XNUMX? The most correct answer: the industry of the USSR is not a shmagl.

    The industry of the USSR was not "unable", but took the wrong path, having spent enormous efforts on the creation of the Tu-160. Russian science and industry is simply not able to create a new aircraft for DA, so it will try to copy not the best Tu-160. About PAK YES so far they just dream ...
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... April 28 2020 23: 59 New
      0
      And why tell the newfangled PAK YES?
      1. Zementbomber
        Zementbomber April 29 2020 21: 24 New
        0
        And why tell the newfangled PAK YES?

        This is the "mystery" of the gloomy notTeutonic genius. "A new strategist for your YES is really needed. But to do it on the model of B-2A ... The one who" agreed and approved "clearly has big problems with knowing even the basics of military geography ... bully
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... April 29 2020 22: 04 New
          0
          I allow myself to voice my opinion. The decision to develop on the model of B-2 is obviously inadequate. In my opinion, the external appearance of the new bomber, if we rely solely on the application of the Kyrgyz Republic, the database should 1 to 1 coincide with the appearance of the serial military-technical transport, for example, IL-76. This will ensure stealth deployment at any aerodrome.
          1. Zementbomber
            Zementbomber April 29 2020 23: 51 New
            0
            "Stealth deployment at any aerodrome" - even in this case it will not work. Just because there are DIA and other offices.
            But yes - epic ideas turn IL-76 (and even An-70 laughing ) in the "strategic bomber" - spoke out. However - this is "a little" not friendly "with Real Realities.
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... April 29 2020 23: 53 New
              0
              I will not make judgments, but as a platform for the WBB CRBD, in principle, no worse than the same subsonic Stealth bomber.
              1. Zementbomber
                Zementbomber April 30 2020 00: 11 New
                -1
                Range, duration, number of suspension units ...
                1. Cyril G ...
                  Cyril G ... April 30 2020 00: 22 New
                  0
                  Does the B-2 and its clones have a future external suspension? And the launch of the ALCM can be done from special discharged platforms, like parachutes. But this is the first thought that came to mind. And what is wrong with the range, the Internet shows that the range of the empty Ilapod is 10000 km, and the B-2 for 11000 km. At the same time, together with the "missile cartridges" you can have an additional tank in the cabin. Is not it so?
                  Again, I remember about the air launch option of ICBMs.
                  1. Zementbomber
                    Zementbomber April 30 2020 00: 43 New
                    0
                    Does the B-2 and its clones have an external suspension?

                    B-2A has no “clones” yet. We are waiting for B-21 (second) and PAK YES. laughing
                    Well and yes - the external suspension on Spirit is provided. Six knots. But it doesn’t apply a bit - since this wunderwafer loses some sense with it (if it was at all originally).
                    and the launch of the ALCM can be done from special discharged platforms, like parachutes.

                    Of course, you are very sorry - but Vladimir Pavlovich (who Gorbulin) didn’t bite you for an hour? How many items do you place in the troop compartment?
                    At the same time, together with the "missile cartridges" you can have an additional tank in the cabin. Is not it so?

                    Is not it so. smile When from the 76th they tried to shoot the FABs and so on. BRABA - had to free the entire compartment.
                    1. Cyril G ...
                      Cyril G ... April 30 2020 01: 07 New
                      0
                      I didn’t bite ... I asked, remembering about the air launch ....
                      1. Zementbomber
                        Zementbomber April 30 2020 01: 17 New
                        0
                        Which one?
                        Sun - so there were two very different schemes ...
                      2. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... April 30 2020 08: 31 New
                        0
                        I'm talking about dropping ICBMs with a parachute then starting in the air
                      3. Zementbomber
                        Zementbomber April 30 2020 09: 04 New
                        0
                        Nobody and never proposed the development of a parachute-landing ICBM. Although ASRK based on the An-22 - Oleg Konstantinovich really offered. But there was a very, very different technical concept (equal to notreal however).
                      4. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... April 30 2020 09: 17 New
                        0
                        Well, I’m mistaken. Then what were the ways to make an air start?
                      5. Zementbomber
                        Zementbomber April 30 2020 09: 55 New
                        -1
                        Real - only two. "From under the belly" and "from the hump"
                      6. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... April 30 2020 10: 27 New
                        0
                        Oh how. got it. Senks. And the media for both ways?
                      7. Zementbomber
                        Zementbomber April 30 2020 11: 14 New
                        -1
                        "From under the belly" - L-1011, B-52, planned MiG-25 and -31. “from the hump” - An-325 was planned.
                      8. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... April 30 2020 11: 18 New
                        0
                        VM-T?
                        But wasn’t we planning an air launch for ICBMs?
                      9. Zementbomber
                        Zementbomber April 30 2020 11: 27 New
                        0
                        Never. VM-T is a "hump" transportation of Energy blocks. But no way not "air start".
  • Zementbomber
    Zementbomber April 29 2020 21: 26 New
    0
    About PAK YES so far they just dream ...

    Well no. Quite realistically design. The CD for it at the bullpen is already more than 50% ready.
  • strelokmira
    strelokmira April 22 2020 17: 08 New
    -5
    It's interesting we like to compare b-52 with tu-95. But at the same time, the b-52 is now held exclusively for bombing in third world countries after cutting out their aircraft and stationary air defense. Due to the huge bomb load, the ability to work in isolation from land bases and the height of the bombing allows you not to enter the radius of the defeat of MANPADS.
    TU-95 is a strategist who should launch strategic missiles, but with the doctrine of containment of the Russian Federation, it is almost impossible for him to complete this task
    1. Zementbomber
      Zementbomber April 29 2020 21: 20 New
      0
      b-52 is now held exclusively for bombing in third world countries after cutting their aircraft and stationary air defense.

      Smooth not So. B-52 now have only the task of operating the ALCM of the database outside the air defense zones.
  • TermNachTer
    TermNachTer April 22 2020 18: 49 New
    -2
    Why is the B - 52 still flying?
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... April 29 2020 00: 05 New
      +1
      There is nothing to replace, the EPR like a stadium, a trace of hundreds of kilometers, etc. etc., such as quoting one mournful reason, By the way, they plan to change it from the 72nd year, recently I read it in ZVO in 1972. Soon they’ll replace the B-52 finally. 50 years have passed.
      1. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer April 29 2020 17: 41 New
        0
        With modern long-range missiles, the Tu-95 will be operational for another 50 years. You can calmly, from the middle of the Pacific, shoot around the United States, without any risk of getting an “answer.”
  • Old26
    Old26 April 22 2020 19: 24 New
    +3
    It was the Syrian events that showed that the Tu-95MS could well be used in modern local wars. So, on November 17-20, 2015, Tu-95MS aircraft hit Kh-55 cruise missiles at positions of the Islamic State organization banned in Russia.

    Something I didn’t hear, that in Syria we shot barmaley with nuclear missiles

    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    and now I don’t remember ... whether the Americans realized or not their "threat" ... in my opinion, no!

    No, not implemented. Till...

    Quote: Arzt
    Maybe I'm not special. But I think, if we had a hundred or two Tu-160s, the Bear would be sent to hibernation.

    The Americans, instead of the planned 243, were able to build only 100 V-1V. And we would have a hundred or two ??? The Americans produced 4 aircraft V-1B per month, we - 4 aircraft TU-160 per year. It would take 2 years to make 160 hundreds of TU-50.
  • bandabas
    bandabas April 22 2020 19: 53 New
    0
    About 2 years ago we flew over the Kola Peninsula. I have not heard for a long time. Roar, rumble is heard from the ground. And, well, that fly.
  • Ryaruav
    Ryaruav April 22 2020 20: 27 New
    0
    the vehicle is distant, economical, carries weapons outside the enemy’s air defense, the speed of a relatively new V-2 spirit has an excellent barrage time (in fact, only the B-52 and Tu-95), but a stealth system is needed but when attacking objects with super air defense such as aug, but the Tu-95 is sharpened for long-range strikes, it’s enough to go up and launch at a low altitude to the line of attack, and modern missiles and lifts do not require therefore I think the Tu-95 and B-52 still serve and serve
  • Alexey Klochko
    Alexey Klochko April 22 2020 20: 43 New
    +1
    I saw this car in Krasnodar at an air show at an altitude of 150 meters, an impressive sight, not forgotten.
  • Fedorov
    Fedorov April 22 2020 20: 52 New
    0
    As a child, I flew from Uzin to Mongohto and back at the place of the tail arrow. Relatives there. Father advised with the appropriate position. But it buzzes of course loudly, not to take it away. Sitting dreaming, drinking tarragon.
  • VeteranS
    VeteranS April 22 2020 23: 13 New
    +2
    In the 70s of the last century, I served as an air rifleman-radio operator YES on this wonderful giant plane (total take-off weight -187 tons, refueling in the air, under the belly of the aircraft was a missile capable of carrying a nuclear charge .... and this missile was launched (an unmanned fighter) at a distance of 350-400 km to the target .... I can only imagine how dangerous our potential Bear (according to the US classification) is to potential opponents ... Glory to Russia and our mighty Armed Forces!
  • Siberian54
    Siberian54 April 23 2020 06: 15 New
    +1
    two years ago, three years ago most of the comments were written by guys who understood the subject of discussion, today VO is filled with bloggers, which are not what the military experts, or even simply urgent, didn’t pull .., plus the trolls of the next are not finished ..
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek April 23 2020 07: 50 New
    0
    And why "fashionable" saber-shaped screws do not put on the carcass? Now all turboprops are like that. And the noise is less from them and more efficient. Even on the An70 stood coaxial.
  • Old26
    Old26 April 23 2020 13: 44 New
    +2
    Quote: strelokmira
    It's interesting we like to compare b-52 with tu-95. But at the same time, the b-52 is now held exclusively for bombing in third world countries after cutting out their aircraft and stationary air defense. Due to the huge bomb load, the ability to work in isolation from land bases and the height of the bombing allows you not to enter the radius of the defeat of MANPADS.
    TU-95 is a strategist who should launch strategic missiles, but with the doctrine of containment of the Russian Federation, it is almost impossible for him to complete this task

    You, dear, have cereal in your head. The B-52 is currently the only one of the US strategic aviation aircraft that, like the Russian TU-95 and TU-160, is capable of delivering strategic missile strikes without entering the air defense zone. In addition, part of the B-52 converted into carriers of high-precision non-nuclear weapons. So yes, you often have to enter the air defense zone
    1. Zementbomber
      Zementbomber April 29 2020 21: 17 New
      0
      As carriers of NNW, the "half-closed" are no longer used. Only B-1B and B-2A.
  • phair
    phair April 26 2020 09: 19 New
    0
    On the Far East, he is in service, not much, I know 2. They are based on Mongohto, sometimes on Knevichi.
  • Zementbomber
    Zementbomber April 29 2020 05: 00 New
    +1
    The NK-95 engine used on the Tu-12 is considered the most powerful among turboprop engines in the world.

    Those who do not know the history of aircraft engine manufacturing - yes, "it is considered". The rest know that the most powerful theater ever created is the Prattovo T-57.
    1. Piramidon
      Piramidon April 29 2020 10: 27 New
      0
      Quote: Zementbomber
      It is known that the most powerful theater ever created is the Prattovo T-57

      Further tests of prototypes of which the case did not advance. And NK-12 has already been serially produced and used for half a century.
      1. Zementbomber
        Zementbomber April 29 2020 21: 13 New
        0
        Yes, Cap Evidence! drinks
  • Zementbomber
    Zementbomber April 29 2020 05: 04 New
    +2
    Until why the "old man" and not cope ?? It generally satisfies the requirements. And even more so - the physical age of the Tu-95 flying now is much less than that of those remaining in service with the B-52G.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... April 29 2020 20: 21 New
      0
      The last built B-52 - 1962. The last Tu-95 in the region of 1992-1993
  • Old26
    Old26 April 30 2020 14: 00 New
    +2
    Quote: Zementbomber
    As carriers of NNW, the "half-closed" are no longer used. Only B-1B and B-2A.

    What are you saying? And really not used, as carriers of non-nuclear weapons? It is strange that our Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs do not know about this. Indeed, on the exchange of data on 1.07.2019, the Americans indicated that they have in their arsenal as many as 41 B-52 strategists, intended for the use of non-nuclear weapons, the so-called "not atomic bombers." Wow, as deceived. Thank you for opening your eyes. It is necessary to devote the entire Ministry of Foreign Affairs, all the Defense Ministry and intelligence, to deprive of ranks and awards and to send to places not so remote. Missed such a detail. Thank you so much for exposing !!!!!!

    Quote: Cyril G ...
    I allow myself to voice my opinion. The decision to develop on the model of B-2 is obviously inadequate.

    Sure? It all depends on the 3T put forward by the ordering office. And from this then the designers and dance. Do you know any other way to achieve stealth without using the B-2 scheme ???

    Quote: Cyril G ...
    In my opinion, the external appearance of the new bomber, if we rely solely on the application of the Kyrgyz Republic, the database should 1 to 1 coincide with the appearance of the serial military-technical transport, Il-76, for example.

    Judging by the proposal, you have never read the texts of strategic agreements between the USSR (Russia) and the USA. For there the creation of carriers based on existing transport (passenger) aircraft is prohibited by the articles of the agreement. Plus, before expressing your proposal, it is not superfluous to think about how your opponent will act. And what will happen if he begins to create CD carriers on the basis of his machines. What more? IL-76 or the same Boeing-747 ?? Or IL-76 or their S-17 (not to mention their other military-technical cooperation) ???

    Quote: Zementbomber
    Well and yes - the external suspension on Spirit is provided. Six knots. But it doesn’t apply a little - because with her this wunderwaffle loses a little sense

    Masterpiece !!!!! You just open people's eyes, talking about the external suspension on the Spirit, a huge amount of tricks to reduce the image intensifier tube and on you - the external suspension, crossing out everything and everything. And maybe, dear, you confuse the presence of external suspension nodes on the V-1B with their absence on the V-2A ???

    Quote: Zementbomber
    Nobody and never proposed the development of a parachute-landing ICBM. Although ASRK based on the An-22 - Oleg Konstantinovich really offered. But there was a very, very different technical concept (equal to notreal however).

    Well, you open your eyes to the problem. The main thing is how categorically "NOBODY AND NEVER OFFERED"
    It should be understood that work in the USA on the Medusa project (at the first stage), and then work on the S-5- Minuteman pair is a fake of pure water? Wow. And the men then (American) do not know that on October 24, 1974 there was no ending experiment to dump the Minuteman from Galaxy




    Quote: Zementbomber
    Exactly wrong. B-52 now have the sole task of operating the ALCM of a database outside the air defense zones.

    Do not write nonsense. The Americans now have 41 B-52N bomber designed to perform missions using high-precision non-nuclear weapons

    Quote: Cyril G ...
    There is nothing to replace, the EPR like a stadium, a trace of hundreds of kilometers, etc. etc., such as quoting one mournful reason, By the way, they plan to change it from the 72nd year, recently I read it in ZVO in 1972. Soon they’ll replace the B-52 finally. 50 years have passed.

    Plan to change since 1972? What wonderful things are your Lord? And what have they gathered to change it since 1972? Indeed, even if we assume that they planned to change it to B-1A, the first B-1 (74-0158) took off from the factory airfield in Palmdale on December 23, 1976. Usually, a decision on a specific replacement date appears when the prototype at least LEE would complete. And you have 4 years earlier.
    The B-1 program "fell victim to" two "black programs" - B-2 and F-117. Since the V-2 was just starting to be designed, the V-1B program became a temporary "substitute" for the V-2A program, given that the V-1A did not go, and the first flight of the V-1B prototype was carried out on March 23, 1983 - it is very doubtful that the decision the replacement of the B-52 was adopted indicating the beginning of the replacement in 1972 ...

    Quote: Zementbomber
    Until why the "old man" and not cope ?? It generally satisfies the requirements. And even more so - the physical age of the Tu-95 flying now is much less than that of those remaining in service with the B-52G.

    Remaining in service B-52G ????? Are you serious ??? But nothing that in 1994 (that is, 26 years ago) the B-52G were withdrawn from service and almost all were destroyed in accordance with START-1. Separate copies were preserved in museums and as monuments at some air bases. Another EMNIP 18 machines are in long-term storage at the Davis-Montan air base and, if necessary, can be returned to service within a few months
    1. Zementbomber
      Zementbomber 1 May 2020 22: 34 New
      0
      And really not used, as carriers of non-nuclear weapons? It is strange that our Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs do not know about this. Indeed, on the exchange of data on 1.07.2019, the Americans indicated that they have in their arsenal as many as 41 B-52 strategists, intended for the use of non-nuclear weapons, the so-called "not atomic bombers." Wow, as deceived. Thank you for opening your eyes. It is necessary to devote the entire Ministry of Foreign Affairs, all the Defense Ministry and intelligence, to deprive of ranks and awards and to send to places not so remote. Missed such a detail. Thank you so much for exposing !!!!!!

      You are welcome! laughing
      I advise your Foreign Ministry to distinguish "are in the park" and "are in service."
      It all depends on the 3T put forward by the ordering office. And from this then the designers and dance. Do you know any other way to achieve stealth without using the B-2 scheme ???

      Yes, I know. The problem is that TK itself was formulated illiterately.
      Without understanding the complete uselessness of inconspicuousness for the TSB YES. However - there the game is more complicated. It’s in the order of things that the developer himself pushes through the Ordering Office, or even higher authorities, to himself a task convenient for him.
      Well, you open your eyes to the problem. The main thing is how categorically "NOBODY AND NEVER OFFERED"
      It should be understood that work in the USA on the Medusa project (at the first stage), and then work on the S-5- Minuteman pair is a fake of pure water? Wow. And the men then (American) do not know that on October 24, 1974 there was no ending experiment to dump the Minuteman from Galaxy

      If you didn’t notice, it was about the USSR. And so the Americans still use their best practices half a century ago in this area. The Quick Rich project, for example (though it's a non-combat rocket).
      Masterpiece !!!!! You just open people's eyes, talking about the external suspension on the Spirit, a huge amount of tricks to reduce the image intensifier tube and on you - the external suspension, crossing out everything and everything. And maybe, dear, you confuse the presence of external suspension nodes on the V-1B with their absence on the V-2A ???

      No, I don’t confuse. bully If someone here has beguiled it, then the GRU of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the USSR.
      the first B-1 (74-0158) took off from the factory airfield at Palmdale on December 23, 1976.

      23.12.1974 actually.
      Remaining in service B-52G ????? Are you serious ??? But nothing that in 1994 (that is, 26 years ago) the B-52G were withdrawn from service and almost all were destroyed in accordance with START-1. Separate copies were preserved in museums and as monuments at some air bases. Another EMNIP 18 machines are in long-term storage at the Davis-Montan air base and, if necessary, can be returned to service within a few months

      Yes, I regularly confuse -52G with -52H - even when sober. laughing Thank you for correcting.
  • Old26
    Old26 1 May 2020 23: 25 New
    +2
    Quote: Zementbomber
    You are welcome! laughing
    I advise your Foreign Ministry to distinguish "are in the park" and "are in service."

    Respected! The exchange of data on START-3 does not imply the use of a certain number in the park. The table shows:
    Line number 1 - Deployed bombers
    Line number 2 - Not deployed bombers
    Line No. 1 - Bombers used for testing
    Line No. 1 - Non-nuclear bombers


    Quote: Zementbomber
    Yes, I know. The problem is that TK itself was formulated illiterately.
    Without understanding the complete uselessness of inconspicuousness for the TSB YES. However - there the game is more complicated. It’s in the order of things that the developer himself pushes through the Ordering Office, or even higher authorities, to himself a task convenient for him.

    TTTs were not formulated illiterate. They were formulated at the level of knowledge and capabilities that existed in the early 70s, when it was launched, then the "black" program, which led to the creation of the B-2A.
    Yes, sometimes the developer pushes through himself, although these "games" most often end at the stage of the advance project. And when several companies take part in the program, push through - do not push through, the final TTZ is issued exactly by ordering management. Otherwise, everyone would pull the blanket over themselves. I agree that when one project remains, changes can be made. And the B-2 program confirms this. There were a lot of options

    Quote: Zementbomber
    If you didn’t notice, it was about the USSR. And so the Americans still use their best practices half a century ago in this area. The Quick Rich project, for example (though it's a non-combat rocket).

    Well then, I apologize. We talked about launching ICBMs from an air carrier, and then you abruptly switched to Soviet developments. Although, I must say, the Air Launch program was supposed to use just such a scheme as the Americans.

    Quote: Zementbomber
    23.12.1974/XNUMX/XNUMX, in fact.

    I’ll try to clarify. Most sources had the year 1976, although it may very well be, since the first copy was rolled out in October 1974. Maybe. Tomorrow I will rummage in materials ...

    Quote: Zementbomber
    Yes, I regularly confuse -52G with -52H - even when sober. laughing Thank you for correcting.

    Nothing wrong. Moreover, to confuse them is quite simple. Both modification G and modification H carried the ALCM AGM-86B. And if it weren’t for the START-1 treaty, according to which they were removed from service and mostly cut, they would have remained in service for some time ...
  • Old26
    Old26 1 May 2020 23: 27 New
    +2
    Quote: Zementbomber
    No, I don’t confuse. bully If someone here has beguiled it, then the GRU of the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces.

    Is there a footnote for the presence of such suspension units? None of the photographs of the B-2A show suspension nodes.