"It looks outdated, but at the same time it surpasses American counterparts": The US press spoke about the Russian Tu-95MS

The Russian strategic missile carrier Tu-95 MS, although outdated in appearance, surpasses all American counterparts. At the same time, it is considered the oldest model in service with the Russian Aerospace Forces, as well as the only actively used propeller-driven bomber in the world.

American columnist Peter Suciu discusses this in his article published by the American edition 19FortyFive. At the same time, the American author does not mention with which specific analogs he compares the Russian combat aircraft. C B-52?

The US press recalls that the aircraft was developed in the USSR back in the 50s of the last century. But in 1981, they decided to restart the production of these missile carriers in order to carry out their deep modernization. Thus, the Soviet bomber turned out to be more modern than its American competitors. In addition, the aircraft has the opportunity to adopt the latest Kh-101 missiles. After that, the bomber became aviation element of the Soviet, and later Russian, nuclear triad.

The author in his article for the US press called the Tu-95MS "Putin's personal missile truck."

This week, two such strategic missile bombers of the Russian Aerospace Forces conducted a planned patrol flight over the Black Sea, which lasted five hours. Thus, the plane once again confirmed that, despite its venerable age, it continues to remain in the ranks and is a formidable force capable of guarding the interests of Russia.

Comments

[Alexander 3]

Russian Bear, he must be respected.

[Anachoret]

in Russia, the bear has long been respected)
so the bear is with us)

[Vladimir Mashkov]

What is good modern plane? This is a good solid construction, well modernized (modernized), saturated contemporary equipment that meets contemporary requirements and able to fulfill modern tasks. Do modern modifications of the Tu-95 meet these conditions? I think they are. Perhaps they are superior to B-52s removed from storage, which do not undergo sufficient modification. Now, if we were talking about the old NOT modified Tu-95, then it would be possible to question the assertion about the superiority of the "Bears".

[Reserve buildbat]

"It looks outdated, but at the same time it surpasses American counterparts."
FROM THE VIEW - this is the main idea. But in reality, it is necessary to take into account the aerodynamic perfection of the Tu-95 (like the best in the world among production aircraft), and the need for replacement. There is such - to change immediately. And if not? The Tu-95 performs its tasks perfectly - so why change it?

[boris epstein]

"The Tu-95 is doing its job very well - so why change it?"
This means there is time for a quiet development of a more perfect model.

[Egoza]

Quote: Stroibat stock

"It looks outdated, but at the same time it surpasses American counterparts."

Here is just pride in Soviet aircraft! There is no USSR, but its affairs live on! You will never catch up with my home country!

[Reserve buildbat]

For the sake of fairness, it must be said that if the mattresses for the B-52 looked as competently as we did for the Tu-95, they would not have worried either and slowly sculpted something like our PAK YES.

[ramzay21]

With their B 52, everything is in order, and PAK YES is an attempt to make an analogue of their B2. But they are already making a more perfect plane, and it will go into production before our PAK DA, as practice has shown with PAK FA to a great extent.

[Reserve buildbat]

Their b52 is already falling apart on the move. The freshest specimens have been living there for 50 years. PAK DA has nothing in common with the b2 except the aerodynamic scheme. This is not a bomber that must sneak into enemy territory, but a missile carrier that must patrol over neutral for a long time.
A "more perfect plane" is not a b21 hour, which officially announced as a simpler and cheaper version of b2? And another big question is when will it go into series.

[ramzay21]

There was not a single case that B52 fell apart, do not wishful thinking. They flew, they fly, and they will fly. They also have everything in order with the storage of the boards that are not needed yet.
B2 has been flying with them for more than two decades, B21 will fly soon, and our PAK YES is only in the pictures.
The PAK YES, like the Chinese prototype, is exactly an analogue of the B 2 and an attempt to catch up with the Americans, and as experience shows, the Chinese will build this plane faster than we do, and we may not master it at all, and economically (the Russian Federation is not the USSR or the PRC) and we have almost no design and engineering personnel left.

The B21 is an aircraft created on the basis of new technologies and the experience of operating the B2, we have neither such technologies nor two decades of experience in operating such machines.

[Briz]

Their B2 is a bomber, and our Tu - 160, and Tu-95 are primarily missile carriers (appreciate the difference)! And for some reason, many call these poor F-35 a fighter ... it's just some kind of, the Su-25 also has air-to-air missiles in its arsenal ... so it is also a fighter! The F-35 is just a strike aircraft, without armor, like a fighter - it does not roll from the word at all. Yes, it is stuffed with electronics on its own fucking, so much so that even to the detriment of (it prevents itself from living), the service is expensive, to fly after departure in a tense combat situation is a blue (a bit double-digit, but very American) dream. Although against the countries of Africa, Asia (excluding China, India and possibly Pakistan) it should be good

[ramzay21]

Their B-52 and bomber and missile carrier, and our Tu 95MS and Tu 160 are only missile carriers, now you will appreciate the difference.
Our S 35 and S 300 do not see the F-400s, because the Israeli F-35s fly with impunity in the Syrian airspace and bomb them, despite the presence of the S300 in the Syrian air defense system.

The Su 25 has become obsolete morally for a long time, because our pilot did not even see that F-16s were coming into his tail. But against the F-35, the F-16, like the F-15, even the latest modifications (analogues of our Su-35S) have no chance at all, and numerous training battles have proved this.
But of course you can be sure that our An-2 can easily deal with the F-35, especially since we cannot create an analogue of the F-35

[Yuriy Filatov]

Their B-52 and bomber and missile carrier, and our Tu 95MS and Tu 160 are only missile carriers, now you will appreciate the difference.
Well, how would our Tu-95s as missile carriers are much better than their missile carriers =) Because they were originally missile carriers, and the B-52 is a collective farm with wings =)
And to confuse the SU-24 and the SU-25 is a must!
And as for the F-35 and the creation of its analogue - then fuck such analogs are needed, in the USA itself this plane was recognized as a national disaster

[ramzay21]

Well, how would our Tu-95s as missile carriers are much better than their missile carriers =) Because they were originally missile carriers, and the B-52 is a collective farm with wings

You are talking some nonsense. Why is the B-52 worse than the Tu-95MS? The combat load of the B-52 is greater, and the combat radius is also greater.

And as for the F-35 and the creation of its analogue - then fuck such analogs are needed, in the USA itself this plane was recognized as a national disaster

The F35 flies and bombs freely in Syrian airspace, which has air defense, including the C300, their pilots simply do not know that they fly bad planes. The United States is also unaware that the plane, which they consider the most advanced and successful in the world, is proving to be a national disaster.
For example, we do not have aircraft that can fly freely in the airspace of the country, which has air defense systems, including even Patriot systems.

It is stupid to reduce the potential danger of weapons of potential adversaries and exaggerate the capabilities of their weapons, all the more so to do it out of touch with reality, and it always ends in disaster. So it turned out Port Arthur and Tsushima with us. The same happened with the Poles, when the Polish cavalry attacked the German tanks, being sure that they were wooden. For this nonsense has already been paid in blood, maybe it's time to stop?

[NIKN]

Tu 95 is a classic strategist platform with the task of delivering cargo to the line of use. There were times when, in order to use means of destruction, it was required to break through the air defense (as an option at low altitude and supersonic), a family of expensive supersonic vehicles was created ... With the improvement of means of destruction, the Tu 95 copes with the same tasks and is much cheaper. Now here is the trick of stealth technology, I think this will sink into oblivion, and once again the modernized Tu 95 will be also necessary in order to do its strategic business at minimal cost.

[voyaka uh]

". Now here is the trick of stealth technology, I think it will sink into oblivion" ///
----
Stealth is becoming the standard, a common feature of combat aircraft.
Any combat aircraft currently under construction is calculated for
radio stealth. They make compromises, but they always take into account
from what distance, in what angle this plane will be detected by radars.
That the Tu-95, that the B-52 are legendary dinosaurs of the past, from which, in terms of economic
For reasons, neither Russia nor the United States can refuse.

[standan]

Is there something like that in Israel? Or chasing barmaley, not rolling sacks?

[Briz]

They also fly fighters to Iran, and then it seems like it is not necessary

[Yuriy Filatov]

To be fair, these dinosaurs need stealth like a dog's fifth leg or a hare a stop signal, because the area of ​​their weapon use is outside of all possible detection systems, and it is not known whether they are not like that, because the form of stealth is a passive technology. and there are also active jamming technologies. For example, I read something about the TU-160go active jamming system, which I could not detect on the MIG-31 radars, having the same TU-160 in the line of sight

[Xnumx vis]

Peter Suciu, in his article for the US press, called the Tu-95MS "Putin's personal missile truck." Like Peter from the USA, so Suciu ... Do not add, do not subtract ... And the Sarmat rocket is Putin's personal club? Ay yes Suchiu. Oh yeah son of a bitch! (paraphrase of a literary quotation. From a letter to A. Pushkin (1799-1837 Vyazemsky.)))) -Hey yes Pushkin! Oh yeah son of a bitch!

[EMMM]

Another would be to imagine for sure that in this MC the modifications were loaded inward. Maybe she doesn't need stealth? So it will fly five thousand kilometers closer to the target and launch something completely indecent with a strategic range.

[Zaurbek]

The B-52 is more versatile in the latest versions. He both bombs a whole assortment of bombs (which tactical vehicles use) and uses a bunch of missiles. Our Carcasses use CDs and it's good that CDs with conventional warheads have appeared. Well Tu22 can carry cast iron bombs.

[Piramidon]

Quote: Zaurbek

He bombs a whole assortment of bombs

Now only the barmaley can be frightened with this. And the Tu-95MS is still a strategist

[Zaurbek]

Scare not scare, but B52 can hang for a long time and precisely lay bombs ...

[Piramidon]

Quote: Zaurbek

Scare not scare, but B52 can hang for a long time and precisely lay bombs ...

And what kind of decent opponent will allow him to "hang" over him?

[Zaurbek]

Maybe there is no enemy air force ... and powerful air defense is suppressed

[Yuriy Filatov]

then this enemy is the same Papuan

[Zaurbek]

But the Papuans can easily finish off a spetsnaz group ...

[ccsr]

Quote: Zaurbek

The B-52 is more versatile in the latest versions. He both bombs a whole assortment of bombs (which tactical vehicles use) and uses a bunch of missiles.

As far as I know, our strategic aviation does not plan to bomb the enemy at all, so as not to enter their air defense zone, which means that the choice of the KR is justified and corresponds to the real situation. The main difference between our Tu-95MS is its relative cheapness and long flight time, which is much more important for patrolling in a threatened period than the ability to use bombs. I think that this aircraft is a true masterpiece of aircraft engineering and it will remain so in the history of aviation forever, and therefore it will serve us for more than one year.

Quote: Zaurbek

Our Carcasses use CDs and it's good that CDs with conventional warheads have appeared.

As far as I know, since ancient times, our CDs have always been developed for two types of charge, so this was envisaged even at the R&D stage.

[Zaurbek]

It is unlikely ..... before the accuracy was different and there was no point in the usual bch. Maybe only anti-ship missiles ... but there the guidance is different and the target is an iron ship

[Al_lexx]

Quote: Zaurbek

The B-52 is more versatile in the latest versions. He both bombs a whole assortment of bombs (which tactical vehicles use) and uses a bunch of missiles. Our Carcasses use CDs and it's good that CDs with conventional warheads have appeared.

Not certainly in that way. Or rather, not at all. Both the Tu-95 and the B-52 have specialized modifications for both rocket revolvers and conventional bomb bays. They do not overlap in any way, in the context of weapons, if we exclude the external suspension. As for better / worse, this is a purely rhetorical question. Everyone has very different electronic countermeasures and it has not yet been possible to compare them in a real combat situation. It’s clear that modern B-52s have nothing in common (except for a glider) with those that bombed Vietnam. Those. I want to say that they also carry out regular upgrades, which consist in improving the LMS, navigation aids, electronic warfare, etc. As for everything else, the article is like a breeze. Is that the fact that with a smaller payload, the Tu-95 has a range comparable to the B-52 and a significantly lower cost of operation. The truth and the working conditions of the crews are incomparable, in favor of the American.

[anjey]

also the only actively used propeller-driven bomber in the world.

Rather turboprop

In addition, the aircraft has the opportunity to adopt the latest Kh-101 missiles. After that, the bomber became an aviation element of the Soviet, and later Russian, nuclear triad.

Then probably
Kh-102 with nuclear warheads. Such fundamental inaccuracies in the article are a little annoying In Soviet times, there was a Kh-55 also with a nuclear warhead. The tasks, precisely at that time, for the Tu-95 were strategic, as for part of the nuclear triad.

[Al_lexx]

Quote: anjey

Rather turboprop

The author said everything correctly, in the context of a mover, but did not say anything about engines. The plane is propeller driven in fact. And the motors, yes, the turbine and in general it is, of course, a turboprop engine + propulsion.

[Alexey Stepanov]

Wise old boa constrictor Kaa

[Iline]

This is the Tu-95K, at one time it was armed with the X-20 missile.

[Zdishek]

Tambov chtol?

[TermNachTer]

Since the appearance of the KR OBD, any aircraft capable of using them is no longer obsolete. Tu - 95 can "work" on the territory of the United States from a distance of 1000 miles from the west coast and no fighter plane will reach it there. And to intercept CDs going on as low as possible is a very dubious pleasure. So, the "bear" will still serve, especially since the resource of the gliders is sufficient, the engines have begun to produce modified ones. Can also be used in low intensity conflicts.

[Goffman]

I wanted to see the "reasoning of the American observer Peter Suciu" that the Tu-95 MS, though outdated in appearance, is superior to all American counterparts. I found this site, in it - a retelling article, in it I was looking for references to superiority (I thought, maybe with specific superior characteristics). Here is the only place that can be pulled by the ears to a declaration of superiority - this is “...The Soviet Union decided to resume production in the 1980s. As a result, Tu-95MS bombers are significantly newer than their American counterparts, even if by comparison, Russian aircraft seem almost outdated.". I would like such articles to be translated or retold yet less pretentious and closer to the text, something like: “Tu-95 MS, although outdated in appearance, is still newer than all American counterparts».

[Zaurbek]

It is newer than B52. But then there were no economical and reliable engines and Tupolev installed NK12 ... and Myasishchev tried it with a turbojet engine ... with a similar chassis arrangement on the B52.

[Normal ok]

Quote: Gofman

I wanted to see the "reasoning of the American observer Peter Suciu" that the Tu-95 MS, though outdated in appearance, is superior to all American counterparts. I found this site, in it - a retelling article, in it I was looking for references to superiority (I thought, maybe with specific superior characteristics). Here is the only place that can be pulled by the ears to a declaration of superiority - this is “...The Soviet Union decided to resume production in the 1980s. As a result, Tu-95MS bombers are significantly newer than their American counterparts, even if by comparison, Russian aircraft seem almost outdated.". I would like such articles to be translated or retold yet less pretentious and closer to the text, something like: “Tu-95 MS, although outdated in appearance, is still newer than all American counterparts».

So this is the "trick" of the authors of VO (mostly unnamed): to write referring to some foreign article a complete gag (anyway, almost no one will look for the original) with patriotic pathos. Although lately, even the links have ceased to give, so that there is no temptation)) Although occasionally serious articles still come across. That's why I also read.

[Normal]

surpasses all American counterparts.

What other analogs, if

it is considered ....... the only actively used propeller-driven bomber in the world.

That is, it is truly unparalleled weapon.

[Kaw]

Another colleague of Majumdar in the shop of inexpensive journalism? I think that these articles are born somewhere within the Moscow Ring Road, and then, for a small amount of money, local Majumdars in the USA and China write articles in local little-known media outlets. So that later the Russian newspapers under the heading "In America they write that ..." could re-educate these filkinny letters already for us, to raise our national national identity. Like, "Well, since they write such things about us in America, it means it's probably true!"

[Murmur 55]

Of course it is. Russia has long been twisting the United States as it wants, changing and appointing presidents, our emissaries open the door to the election commissions, any Internet resource, even the Pentagon, even the Capitol is not a problem for Russia, but sanctions are so for the sake of appearance, so that no one would guess how we are cool

[Yuriy Filatov]

How wrong you are!
In the United States, just a shaft of such articles comes out before each adoption of the military budget =)
how should they explain the same, why the hell do they need another $ 20 billion to the already allocated 700 billion
This season, the United States has the weakest army in the world. and their tanks are outdated, and their wings are falling off. and missiles of the wrong system ...

[Ros 56]

No need to look that the Bear is sick and coughing, he sends greetings to the right and to the left, whoever asks.

[Mikhail Tynda]

Sick? Is he coughing?

[Thrifty]

Tu95, no matter what kind of modernization it will fly over the grave of such hacks. ...

[Crimean partisan 1974]

as well as the world's only actively used propeller-driven bomber.

... Medved TURBOVINTOVA ... and if the translation of Suskvach's words is correct, then it is impossible to call him a specialist ... a clown

[Al_lexx]

Quote: Crimean partisan 1974

... Medved TURBOVINTOVA ... and if the translation of Suskvach's words is correct, then it is impossible to call him a specialist ... a clown

I repeat ...
The author said everything correctly, in the context of a mover, but did not say anything about engines. The plane is propeller driven in fact. And the motors, yes, the turbine and in general it is, of course, a turboprop engine + propulsion.

[stoqn477]

Quote: ccsr

As far as I know, since ancient times, our CDs have always been developed for two types of charge, so this was envisaged even at the R&D stage.

If I am not mistaken, with your strategic aviation ammunition, a conventional warhead is rather an exception. Nuclear - standard. In a nuclear war, for which the Tu-95, Tu-160 and, in particular, the Tu-22 were created, there was no need to carry weapons with conventional combat units, especially until the end of the Cold War. And an exception, perhaps, for the Tu-22 anti-ship missiles. But in reality, how many of them were with conventional ones, and how many with a nuclear warhead are known only in your headquarters.

[Mikhail Tynda]

If I am not mistaken, you are mistaken. The standard is a conventional warhead. Therefore, the payload is 45t.

[Ros 56]

Ask the Syrian barmaley on this topic. They will tell you how they were treated from heaven.

[Dilettante grandfather]

2221. The United States, at its Martian base, tested the Destroyer spacecraft, created according to the sketches of a certain J. Lucas, which, it was believed, could help them gain dominance in space. But it turned out that once again the modernized Tu-95 surpasses this car in all respects ...

[isv000]

Our technique is so good because it is simple and reliable. Serves and protects, to the last rivet ...

[Oleg Aviator]

Great bomber jacket. Examined him at 89m in Mozdok. The only rescue system is still better than ejection seats. The escalator does not inspire much confidence. You need to throw out the nose stand and then try to jump out. I've imagined everything looking at him how I would do it. Especially if it falls into a flat spin.

[Diverter]

TU - 95 BEAUTIFUL !!!)))

[AC130 Gunship]

The article is about nothing. What characteristics is superior? And who? B-52, for example, having about the same speed and range, takes twice as many cruise missiles

[Mikhail Tynda]

What? Where is two more?

[Borri]

You would have to ride it for 15-16 hours until the brains flow out of your ears.
The platform was outdated by the 70s.

[Radio operator and engineer]

The plane is reliable, which means it is ready to perform BZ! They say that the fighter is shaking nearby ... The propellers work with amazing "acoustics" ...)

[shinobi]

All world combat aviation that actually fights and is in the ranks was created in the 60-70s of the last century. All these 5th generations, etc. so far, they cannot withstand competition. Even the relatively new Eurofire and Mirage, yet well-run concepts of the 60s. The same story is repeated as in marine shipbuilding. There is no surprise for anyone with "old people" in 30-50 years. installations, but ... The ships themselves are built according to the precepts of Archimedes himself and the proven technologies of the late 40s. New materials? Somehow they do not really take root, and even then more in the design. The laws of nature will not be canceled.

[niksfromru]

This is only because "generals are always preparing for the PAST war."
In addition, it should not be forgotten that in the competition of "armor and projectile" air defense systems have advanced much further since the 50s than any modernized aircraft of those years.

[limaps2014]

What is TU-95MS? It is a mobile launch pad for nuclear-powered cruise missiles. His task at hour X is to release these missiles while in the air. Nobody knows at what point on his route he will do it. To destroy targets in Europe, he does not even need to fly close to the border. Taking into account the size of our country and the echeloned air defense and missile defense system, this old man can be safely operated for another fifteen to twenty years.

[Osipov9391]

This plane will last no more than 10 more years, maximum. Exactly like the Tu-22M3. They are almost all expiring. Components have not been produced for a long time. The production of the machines themselves was discontinued almost 30 years ago. There are fewer and fewer people capable of servicing these aviation complexes.
PAK YES is nothing more than a cut - a whole generation behind and meaningless.
It is advisable to make the carrier of strategic cruise missiles on the basis of the cargo Il-96 or Il-76. There, the characteristics and capacity of the CD will be a cut higher. And those platforms are well debugged in production / operation.
And this is all history. And the plant where the Tu-95MS is being repaired belongs to Deripaska. It is almost destroyed.

[decimalegio]

as the Americans say, "Old guns never die." This is one such case