Don't cry for him while he's alive.
Yes, on Sunday we were dealt a pretty good slap in the face, and many world media outlets that write about the military devoted space to this on their pages.
"Key points - recent blow drones Ukraine's Operation Spider Web, which reportedly destroyed or damaged several Russian Tu-95 Bear strategic bombers deep inside Russian territory, represents a significant and potentially irreparable loss to the country's long-range aviation Moscow"
And so on and so forth: Soviet-era aircraft that first took to the air in 1952, widely used to launch winged missiles against Ukraine, cannot be easily replaced because their production ceased several decades ago.
That's right. Indeed, production of the Tu-95 at Plant No. 18 in Kuibyshev (the city changed its name to Samara, and the plant was renamed a dozen times) has ceased, and there is no doubt that it can be resumed. And the loss of even four such aircraft would seem to greatly weaken Russia's nuclear triad.
Nuclear triad. A very loud term that implies that a country has three components of nuclear deterrence forces: land, sea and air. Intercontinental ballistic missiles of land and sea (submarine) basing and cruise missiles with nuclear warheads of air basing.
However, submarines today can also easily and effortlessly carry cruise missiles on board and launch them as needed.
Only the USA, Russia and China have full-fledged (in fact, not) nuclear triads. But even with a huge dose of optimism, these triads cannot be called full-fledged.
Simple question: who is the main carrier of nuclear weapons? weapons by air for these countries? The US has the B-52, Russia has the Tu-95, China has the Tu-16/H-6. What do all these planes have in common? Their age. These are not outdated machines, they are ancient. The B-52 was made in 1952, the Tu-16 was made in 1952, the Tu-95 is younger - 1956. Yes, they have all gone through a series of upgrades, they are very different inside from the planes that were 70 years ago, but... In essence, these are ancient planes with more or less modern weapons.
And one more thing: all three countries are in no hurry to replace these veterans. The Americans' B-21 will destroy a bunch of billions more, and even if it does fly, it won't be anytime soon and it's not a fact that it will be a decent amount. The Chinese H-20 has been tinkered with for 20-25 years now and so far there are no particular results, and our PAK DA has been practically turned into PAK NET by Putin's decision, because it hasn't left the drawing stage, even though 16 years have passed.
Why is that? Has everyone suddenly forgotten how to build airplanes?
I think they haven't forgotten how, but they do understand the specifics of their use. And we won't take China with its terrifying number of Tu-16s, their use is a separate topic, with the B-52 everything is also simple: the extensive network of US bases and airfields on NATO territory makes it possible to reach any corner of the globe. Well, or almost any.
But we are interested in the usefulness of the Tu-95...
Let's start with the armament. It will be simpler. The main weapon of the Tu-95 is cruise missiles.
The Kh-55/555 is a missile capable of traveling up to 3 km at a speed of 500 km/h. The warhead weight is 800 kg. It can carry a nuclear warhead. It can fly at extremely low altitudes while following the terrain. It is intended for use against stationary ground targets with pre-determined coordinates.
X-101/102. This product is capable of flying from 2 to 800 km at a speed of about 5 km/h (its maximum is higher, up to 500 km/h, but also not supersonic) and carrying a warhead weighing the same 700 kg. Or (in the X-1 version) a nuclear warhead.
That is, if you calculate, these missiles will cover their distance of 3 km in 000 hours. 4,5 km in the case of the Kh-5 is almost 500 hours. But the missiles still need to be delivered to this distance. For example, to the Pacific Ocean or at least to the Aleutian Islands.
Why there? It's simple. No one will let the "Bears" fly through the Arctic or Europe. No, if we are talking about planting a cruise missile on a target in Europe - no problem at all, it can be launched from Klintsy and it will fly to London. If it reaches, of course, and the missile will not reach, because Europe is full of modern and effective air defense systems. So the West is closed.
Let's forget about Europe, there's nothing to catch there.
North. It's about the same in the North: they'll let you take off, but nothing more. To fly over the Arctic Ocean to the US launch area, you'll have to cover many hundreds of kilometers. But the 95s won't be allowed to cover them, they'll just shoot them down. There's a great airfield in Kirkenes, there's a US airbase in Rovaniemi, and all of this is half an hour away for both the F-15 and the F-16. And don't forget that the Scandinavians are NATO now. With all that that entails. And they'll be "guarding" the airfield in Olenya very diligently.
South. Well, there's nothing for us to do in the south, you understand, there are no allies there who could bring a tanker with fuel, so...
The East remains. The following scheme is obtained: the Tu-95s must take off from an airfield in the Amur Region and either fly over their own territory to Kamchatka, from where they will try to reach the enemy's territory, or fly over the Pacific Ocean in the direction of North America.
We immediately reject the second option, because they will intercept. That is why the US has 5 aircraft carriers in the Pacific Ocean in theory. In practice, there may be fewer, but one is enough. A floating airfield, extended several thousand kilometers into the ocean, is a very good shield for the US. There will be no talk of any fighter cover at such distances, so all the "Bears" will fly into the ocean.
Launching from the Kamchatka region is safer, but from the only airfield in the Far East, Tu-95s will be thundering there for 5-6 hours and only the lazy will not track them. And they will wait, as they say, fully armed.
Map-scheme with airfields of strategic aviation of Russia
The main problem with the Tu-95 is that it is huge and slow. It can be seen from space, and its takeoff is detected even by those who don't need it. And its unhurried flight allowed its neighbors to determine the direction of missile strikes and try to counter them.
The second problem is slow missiles. Everything is clear here, either the missile is very fast or flies far. The Kh-555 and Kh-101 fly very far, but their speed is low, which means they can be intercepted by an aircraft or an air defense system. Which was demonstrated in Ukraine.
It is unpleasant to admit, but the Kh-101 and Kh-555 are outdated today. Yes, both missiles were first developed at the Raduga Design Bureau back in the 80s, so there is no need to demand any unearthly characteristics.
It is good, of course, that we have more effective and modern products, but they are somewhat from other families. As for our strategic missiles, in fact, they have only one advantage. They are capable of flying at a very low altitude, following the terrain. But today this is not a panacea at all, there are systems that can easily detect a missile, and there is no doubt that modern OLS will see a heat trace and direct their missile like the Sidewinder to it.
What do we get? We get a very slow plane with slow missiles. And what useful can it do? At all, it can. For example, launch these missiles at an enemy that does not have modern means of detection and Defense. Just like it was in Syria.
Or throw back at a more advanced enemy in the hope that at least something will slip through the air defense. As it was in Ukraine, but judging by how many missiles were shot down, the Ukrainian Air Defense Forces coped with the air defense systems provided by Western countries.
Bad signal: it means they can handle it there too, if necessary.
So, the Tu-95 is useless?
No, I wouldn't say so. It has a very useful property: it is huge and only the radar that is turned off cannot see it. Strange, you might say, where is the logic? Just now these characteristics were among the negative ones...
That's right. In the event of a global conflict, the launch and spreading of all Tu-95s across the map will cause a response: tracking will begin of where each aircraft is flying, determining the probable launch area, after the launch they will track the missiles...
In my opinion, it's a great diversionary maneuver. And under its cover, a pair of submarine missile cruisers will fire a salvo from an area that wasn't under close surveillance.
Otherwise, the Tu-95 is an absolutely outdated aircraft that does not meet modern requirements. So is it worth feeling sorry for it and wringing its hands, demanding immediate punishment for those who allowed the terrorist attacks?
No, of course we must demand punishment. And demote, and imprison, and deprive of everything. And to pity... As one of the representatives of THAT country told me: "I look at them, and my heart skips a beat - what power!"
And what kind of power? None at all. Of course, the videos on Zvezda with these huge irons over the waters of the Atlantic really boost the spirits of pensioners. And the footage of the Tu-95 flying over Nimitz in 2008 delights TV viewers…
It's just that those who consume TV in such quantities don't understand that this is only possible in peacetime. In the event of a military conflict with a country that has a real Air Force and Air Defense, these slow-moving planes in the sky will be shot down about as quickly as Bf-109s shot down TB-1941s in 3.
Let's not talk about aircraft carriers. No, it's very tempting to shoot a drum at the Bush from a distance of 1000 km. Especially since this is practically safe - F/A-18s are not scary at such a distance. But here's the problem - the missiles are designed to hit stationary objects...
Then a fair question arises: is it needed at all?
Yes, but why does it have to be cut up? Let it serve. The Americans used the B-52 in Syria in 2016-18. Against Iraq. We also used it in Syria. What if we clash with the new Syrian or old Afghan authorities? It will come in handy.
Here, of course, it turned out very ugly with the bases, everyone got a wet rag in the face. But let's be mature: there will be no war with the USA. Under no circumstances, for a whole series of reasons. And there will be no global slaughter with NATO, especially in Europe (although Europe should be cleansed of inhumans once again), no matter what the Macrons do.
So this flying propeller anachronism will not work. The Tu-95 has already served as the country's shield without combat use for six decades, so what now... And the fact that our neighbors worked on them - I honestly admit that if they had gone through the bomber regiments with the Su-34, it would have been very noticeable.
And the four 95s... Let them rejoice there, in the West, counting how much they weakened us. In fact, they did not weaken us at all. This plane is not for a modern military conflict. Yes, there must be order in the protection and defense of airfields, surveillance services must observe, pilots must fly, and counterintelligence must not allow such incidents.
The Tu-95 is a beautiful and powerful aircraft in its own way. A symbol of a bygone era, serving with all its might, because the era that came after it is unable to build something newer and more powerful.
But here the question arises: is it necessary? The world is changing. The means of detection and destruction are changing, so much so that it is impossible to keep track. Well, tell someone 10 years ago about drones — they would have laughed. It was a rarity, quite expensive. And now?
Who knows what will happen in another 10 years. Will the B-21 and H-20 become obsolete without ever taking off?
This incident was called the "Russian Pearl Harbor". In the American Pearl Harbor, the Japanese sank five battleships, two irretrievably, three were raised and restored (one after 2 years). These were ships built between 1916 and 1921, not the newest. Of course, the blow was the fleet and the country's image is great, so the US got really worked up and we know how it all ended.
It seems so. First of all, because the damage is more moral, which means that ours will still win. And the Tu-95 will forever remain in the memory of aviation historians as a luxurious machine that served its time (and even more) honestly.
Information