It was great to see that the crew on the updated TU-95 still uses slide rules to make calculations. I guess that the crew on the original Bears used an abacus. Now that's training!
@@sue08401 jajaja.... those bear crew are good whit a simple slide rule..they know how to navigate the old way if they have to ( No GPS, ect ) old fashion compass and star navigation in a war senario no tec can jam it.....and yes we have good pilots.. but we take out the navegators and put a GPS what will happen when the GPS system is jam or out off service.....we go back to the basic navegators skills... if you know or remember 🤔
Thats a stupid comment concidering it really doesnt matter if the lesser aircraft still has the capability to unleash numerous cruise missile against you. Yes the B-52 is more capable but the Bear is more versatile. And once the missiles start flying it doesnt matter which aircraft launched them
@@alexanderlacambra8520 And your an ass. The Bear has seem combat in multiple countries for exaclty one yewr less than the B-52 and has performed more tasks and in more configurations than the B-52. Now the B-52 is most probably the best military aircraft ever produced , Ive stated thay in previous comments if you bothered to read them. But the fact is the Bear is currently and will continue to be a very capable aircraft capable of performing more roles than the B-52 is capable of carrying out. Focus on what the individual aircraft have actually done and not your prejudice on who mamufactored them. Only a fool bases their opinion on emotions instead of actual facts.
The TU-95 Bear is also one of the LOUDEST aircraft ever built! It can be tracked from hundreds of miles away by SOSUS (Sonar under the oceans) just by it's sound. I've heard Fighter Pilots complain about intercepting them, because they are so damned loud that they can't even hear the jet engines of the plane they are sitting in!
@@elpupusero yeah no, the Tu-95 has a top speed of 575 mph while the B-52 has a top speed of 650 mph, it’s surprisingly not much of a difference but the B-52 is still faster by almost 100 mph
@@masterx11a On the long range radar sites in AK we encountered these bears quite often. I think the "top speed" of 575 is a gross exaggeration -- more like 510-520. Props, after all, and about half the climb rate. What does that tell you about power out-put?
As an American I swing to the B-52. Although one can not disrespect the Bear, two different approaches in design and they both are legendary. Just look at the service record of these giants, to last and serve their nations this long is a testament to just how great they and their engineering are!
eh, not really 2 different approaches if you consider the fact they are both successors of the the same root aircraft. They are both parented offshoots of the B-29 Superfortress.
@@jeffcamp481 For some reason, I like the way the Tu-95 looks sitting on the ground. It looks really long legged with such tall landing gear. But I also like it for being unique. A swept wing, coaxial propeller driven, long range bomber and the last of it's kind. Both planes may have started from the same basic design, but there's no doubt that they're quite different too.
@@Phrancis5 Well technically yes and no. No cause at the time the US and the Soviet Union were allies during late WW2. American B-29s that attacked Japanese Targets that had emergency trouble landed in the Soviet Union which during that part of the conflict was still neutral and thus legally detained the bombers. Yes cause This is the Soviet Union we are talking about and Joseph Stalin was smart enough to realize that the B-29 was likely far superior to its Russian counterpart that was being developed so had his aircraft designers research, and make duplicates of the bombers thus pretty much stole them although they did return one of the craft. Here's the fun part. The Tu-4 were literally almost duplicates of the B-29. Looking exactly the same but with some russian modifications and additions thrown in. Different engines, guns, some modification to the frames to allow for tech the Russian's had. However it also wasn't. The Russian's added some features that in many ways made their version of the Superfortress better. In a couple ways its one of the few cases where someone ripped off someones else's tech and improved on it. Ironic that both in the end would carry a legacy for both superpowers. The BUFF and the Bear being cusions.
They're both big, slow and dated technology. The B-52 has moved off to relatively uncontested airspace missions to remain relevant. The main thing both have going for them is both are paid for, still work and have a relatively low cost of operation. The B-52 adapted better. The Bear remains a big ,loud, saber rattling target.
It is a tool. Western powers first ensure air superiority, then the big hammers come in. The B-52 is perfect in the correct situation. Which is why it remained in use.
Tell those terrorist hiding in holes in the Afghan mountains how irrelevant the B-52 was. Every one of them shit their pants when they saw those contrails in the sky...they knew cluster bombs were comming. The B-52 is a brute...80000 pounds of bombs!! Usually thou, we carried less..around 20000 to 30000...
As a B-52 ex crew chief The B-52 is boss. With it's ground follow radar that can fly under radar when the need arises. Among other features not mentioned due to classified information. I did not agree with the tail guns removed because as a last resort it is a good deturant. Since a tail gunner actually shot down a sam missile in flight over vietnam . When jamming did not work.
The biggest honor I had in the AF was to give a B-52 crew chief an entire pallet of hydraulic fluid before they departed Anderson AFB on the way to Hanoi. He was very happy.
Both are no longer considered deep penetration strategic bombers but have been repurposed as stand-off missile depots. In combat they will stay well away from the action and lob cruise missiles to targets.
i was reading up the missiles that the TU-95 can launch, with range of 3000km, thats insane , most jets dont even have the fuel capacity to even intercept that
Just by reading the description, the BUFF is the "better" airframe. It is faster, has a greater payload, and longer range. They can both carry similar weapons load-outs, but the BUFF can carry more of everything, and deliver it faster and farther than the TU-95. For it's advantages, the TU-95 can operate from more primitive airfields, and like the BUFF, uses the plentiful jet fuel (which is basically kerosene).
The B-52's warload is considerably greater than that of the Tu-95. Although the precise amount of munitions in terms of raw tonnage would of course vary widely depending on the mission profile, in terms of raw lifting power the B-52 can carry and deliver significantly more than the Bear. The Bear is still formidable, though, make no mistake.
@@williamjpellas0314 Had the question been, "Which is formidable," The answer would be "Both." Since the question was, "Which is better," the only accurate answer is "The BUFF."
There is nothing like seeing an ARC light strike from a B-52, saw them in Vietnam in 68-69 along the DMZ, you start seeing the bombs going off, just smoke going up to the heavens and then you hear the noise, but the planes are so high you cannot see them! Awesome!
Russian/Soviet design theory is "good enough.". 500plus MPH and 3,500 plus mission range is good enough to attack any Russian enemy. The B52 still has room for updates and could accept new mission profiles while the TU-95 is at the end of its ability's to move into new territory. It seems like this was done before the most recent engine upgrade to hi bypass, modern, fuel efficient engines
Both are awesome. Both should be appreciated as individual aircraft. Clearly, as a jet, the B52 has serious advantages but the Bear is a beast all on its own and as a non-jet is a marvel of engineering.
Yes. Much better than these annoying diesel pickups that the public has to endure on a daily basis in car centric USA from insecure small membered men in the country I was born into: Dumberica. I feel sorry for the masonic manipulated ww2 vets that fought and sometimes died into the retardedness we have seen unfold into Walmartmurica.
Just by looks I will always go for the B52. And if I see this list of specs, I will also go for the B52. It's just better in all ways possible then the TU95.
Yeah 'Defense Updates' is a bit full on with the anti-east stuff, he's right 99% of the time IMO, but its the "caught with their pants down" extra stuff added, like when Russian jets crash or something. You'll never see a vid on the USS Cole bombing type thing, even an analysis
So will some Bears. The Bear can't fly as fast as the '52 and carries about half the payload but make no mistake -- it can kill you from hundreds of miles away.
IT SURE IS? if your going too take out terriosts on donkeys who dont use toilet paper, oh ya we tucked and ran leaveing 85 billion dollars worth of hardware and a trillion dollar base.
The question is, as always, which version to compare. The skills are practically the same. One aircraft with cruise missiles is enough to destroy a medium-sized European country.
I choose the b52 cause it has seen combat action in any us major conflict since the Vietnam war were as the tu95 only saw combat action in 2016 since its development in the 1950s
@@britishprofessor9957 Yeah… first time in history civilians were killed during war. Wait! I’m wrong. Wasn’t there some British WW2 bomber named “Lancaster” that bombed German civilians? 🙄 Save your faux moral outrage lesson, “Professor”.
@@britishprofessor9957 out of the topic.it's the fault of military leaders.It doesn't change the fact that B52 is a great aircraft.after all it was designed to destroy enemies
@@sergeantblue6115 I dont think they should do that because if such a program was implemented, the budget would be low as fuck and most of it would go to the middle men's swimming pool and in the end the aircraft would be worse than what they started with.
@@dakohli you're absolutely correct on your assumption of submarines detecting aircraft. If they are flying low enough they can be detected by the submarines passive sonar array.
In 1974 I was a radar tech on a EC-121 radar plane flying out of Iceland. I never saw a radar return from a B-52 but the largest, by far, Radar return I ever saw was from a TU-95. Huge spot on the scope.
@@MaxCruise73 Since the return was so much stronger than other planes that would be my guess too. Lots of props going on on those planes. We directed F-4's to them and their returns were much smaller.
@@MaxCruise73 US subs using sonar can also pick up the noise caused by the props. Tom Clancy did an interview many years ago about russian hardware and got some good laughs about their effectiveness. Bear props were mentioned.
The Tu-95 Bear has a special place in my heart. It's just such a cool and unique looking aircraft. And the noise it makes is awesome. But, it's no match for the far more modern and better performing B52. Plus there are many MANY more B52's than Tu-95's.
Lol.... Between Old monster and Dangerous old monster... EKRANO PLANE of USSR, was Forgotten.. It can stay Under radar an only patrolling vessel could spot this Caspian Sea Monster 👌🤣🤣🤣
Better Windows as well they are wider allowing for better line of sight the B-52 while a great plane as smaller window panes which mean more supports meaning less line of sight!
Judging from the action radiuses of both American Soviet/Russian airplanes, be they bombers or fighters, my conclusion: - American bombers and fighters were designed to travel all the way to the USSR/Russia and lay waste to the entire country; - Soviet/Russian bombers and fighters always have had rather short action radiuses, meaning they were designed to defend the Soviet/Russian nation, rather than doing what the Americans intended to do.
I don't have to watch 1 second of this video to automatically know the United States fields a way better bomber. Because Russia's janky and they build jank equipment . Ever seen a Russian car driving down the road?
@@banana03 B-52 looks like big fat barrel. Tu-95 looks elegant, slim, though together with power. You lie, it does not look like any plane in the world ever built.
So, neither are fast, neither are maneuverable, both are radar visible and both can carry a huge load of weapons which carry themselves into the war zone while the aircraft stays well away. It seems the "best" would be what would be the cheapest to operate. The cheaper they are, the more of them your can operate and the more firepower you can get into a conflict.
Actuall if you did any type of reserch you'd know that the Bears have been involved in numerous combat missions have a number have be3n shot down just like the B-52's in Vietnam
@@randombully3798 Actually yes they did . Just about every conflict in the world today is supported by either the Russians or the US. So yes the anti aircraft systems they confronted were either against their own anti aircraft systems or American made systems . In some countries like Ethiopia they even faced a combination of both Russian and American anti aircraft weapons.
@@glennoswald5928 The Tu-95 has never had a combat loss, and has only been used in combat during the Russian involvement in Syria, where it launched cruise missiles, from well outside the range of any surface to air threats.
@@glennoswald5928 "Actuall if you did any type of reserch you'd know that the Bears have been involved in numerous combat missions..." I just did a quick google web search and came up with nothing for the combat record of the Tu-95 Bear bomber. Perhaps you can share with us some of the "numerous combat missions" that you allege that the Tu-95 Bear has been involved in?
The B52 has remained in service because it is still the best at what it does. The Russian Bear is still around because it is all they have. But I wish we would simply put an end to war.
Both of these aircraft are awesome and have been adapted to different roles as time rolls on. Both now might be deadlier than ever as neither need to be enemy air space penetrators anymore. They are now both standoff range cruise missile trucks.
which, by the way, means a modified B767 could do the job (ok exaggarate but these are not "fighter aircraft" anymore like when they were supposed to fly into mordor and evade flak and enemy fire)
The Tu-95 descends directly from the B-29 with two models in between (the Tu-80 an Tu-85). The B-52 was a complete departure from the B-29 philosophy. They took different directions to solve the problem with early low power high consumption jet engines. B-52 is of course better.
I was aboard a Navy ship just outside of Haiphong Harbor during Operation Linebacker II in December and January 1972 -73. Raids of 120+ B-52s each dropped over 100 500lb. bombs each on Haiphong and Hanoi. No conventional warfare has ever been more damaging.
@@Primus54 CLOWN! You lost in Vietnam just as you did in Iraq and Afghanistan...because the local people were always prepared to fight one day longer than the occupiers.
I don't know about better lol they both are pretty tough to me (monsters actually! ). I may be in the USA and have pride in my country but I do have sense enough to respect the adversary we could face! lol
Practically everything in USA inventory is better, but russia has good rockets and missiles they seem to focus on that because of limited government funds
The last brand new B-52 came off the production line in 1962. The Tu-95 ceased production in 1993. Both have been upgraded in their respective careers.
The Reason the TU-95 still uses Turbo Probs instead of Jet Engines is too reduce Stress on the Frame something that the B-52 has countered by having each B-52 run less Flight Hours they just use a spare one something Russia has few spares off so have to use less power engines to reduce downtime and maintenance costs! Also Jets cost more to run due to being more complex and having parts wear-out faster!
Turbo Props are much more economical and require much less fuel. B-52 with its 8 engines burn train of fuel each flight. Tu-95 is much less in size with similar characteristics. That's why Tu-95 is also used for intercontinental surveillance flights and B-52 are not
@11B 2J while the B-52 is arguable the best military aircraft ever produced The Bear is far more versatile . It can do a dozen jobs like anti ship ,anti submarine , Recon, Radar jamming, ground control, The US ideals is to build seperate aircraft for each specific requirement . Thats why the US has 10x's The military budget of the next five military's combined . It keeps Americans employed and makes congressmen rich. The Russain strategy ot to make there military hardware as versatile as possible using single airframes to do numerous requirements .
Fun fact most US Milkitary Computers including those in planes use Power8 or Newer Power9 CPU's & GPU's from Power Imagination (aka the people that make Apples GPU's for ARM SoC's!) why as it is less common than X86 CPU's they are harder to hack Espcially the Power9 as it is Open Source so anyone can alter Architecture and Micro-Code making it even harder still to hack, The US is also Switching from Megalithic Kernels to newer (Easier to code for and audit but also more secure and faster too boot & reboot when needed but also reduces the frequency of reboots as all sectors of the Kernel can reboot on they fly in just a few seconds after an update, power surge or kernel panic!) Micro-Kernels further Improving Security! Power9 CPU's (By IBM!) Power Imagination GPU's Micro-Kernels Why not use ARM as that is British Tech owned by the Japanese Why not use X86 as it is far to common meaning knowledge on how to attack it is far more common making it easier to code Malware for! Why not use RISC-V it is not yet Mature Enough too run Complex Tasks! Why not use VLIW like Russia, Well because Russia is using it making it a Security Risk as well as not as Fast or powerful as x86 or Power9! Power9 is used is Mainframes, Super Computers & DATA Centres as it is more Powerful than most x86 CPU's and is more Secure as well (Partly due to being far less common but also Customisable by anyone that knows what they are doing!) thus meaning anyone can buy one as is by IBM or a Partner or have a Custom Version Designed and Built with no Fee's or Licenses needed unlike ARM or x86 Processors! Power9 supports Open CAPPI which is faster than NVIMe 4.0 Power9 Supports upto 4 Threads per core meaning a Quad Core Power9 CPU has 16 Virtual Cores (aka Threads!) Power9 has far less Micro-Code than x86 meaning it is faster not supporting Ancient Code for Processes that are no longer used or needed thus greatly speeding up tasks and freeing up internal memory! Power9 Supports over 1TB of RAM Nativly something only certain x86 processors can do at ATM only Apples M1's and Custom Server ARM Chips support!
The B-52 is bigger, faster, weighs less, has a greater range, greater climb rate, greater flight ceiling, and has more than twice the payload capacity. And it was put into service a year earlier than the Tu-95. There is no question which one is better.
@@ivelinis the B-52 has a cruise speed roughly equivalent to the Tu-95’s maximum speed, so the B-52 can accomplish the same mission in less time. On top of that the B-52 carry’s more than twice the payload of the Tu-95, so it would take more than twice the number of Tu-95’s to accomplish the same mission as the B-52. It is true the Tu-95 is more fuel efficient, but it doesn’t even come close to having twice the fuel efficiency of the B-52. Therefore, in the long run, since the B-52 can carry more than twice the payload while using only about 25% more fuel, the B-52 is actually more economical to operate. It costs less per pound of delivered payload if the bombs are delivered from a B-52, because it has far superior engineering. And once the B-52 re-engine program is complete (2030), the B-52 will be more fuel efficient than the Tu-95. Both have mid air refueling so range is irrelevant. Both planes are only restricted by the endurance of the pilots.
@@willymac5036 speed is irrelevant here. Tu 95 can go further, it works perfectly for Russia, and especially when deployed in Arctic. Can get close to USA and with a few hypersonic Zircon on board, don't need to carry loads. B52 works for the US well. I think is one of the reasons Russia not to retire the tu95, the hypersonics
The fact that at the projected lifespan the B52 will have it in service for ~90 years before being retired IF they don't get another modernisation and extension is not talked about enough.
Many of these aircraft flew against each other (same missions at the same time), decades ago. I'm afraid these old warriors will one again strike up their rivalry, very soon.
It should be noted that one of of the reason Soviet bombers have a lower payload weight is generally due to the size of the munitions it carries. Typically it's checked as Number x type of munition. You will see this in the tu160 as well. The combat radius is also a matter of combat doctrine. As you'd find, the B52 combat radius appears to be alot higher but it's a gimmick. This is because they don't expect the B52 to return to the same airbase.
@@Cyricaaa aerial refueling is not accounted for when checking this distance. If refueling is accounted for then the range would've been the maximum number of continuous engine operating hours X the level of output. Both aircraft have longer ranges with refueling but it doesn't affect my original comment. Also, gays are nasty spawns of evil. If you believe in God then know this was only one of two times he sought no explanation. If you don't believe in God, I hate your kind regardless
The Tu-95 could be made into an airliner (the Tu-114 executive transport and Tu-116 airliner). The B-52 shared tech with an airliner, but was never converted into one.
why not talk about the price of each? 100 million for the b52 and 25 million for the tu 95. If we're talking 1 to 1 then B 52 is better, but if we're talking same price so 4 TU 95s then ill take the TU 95
I’d easily pick the bear. It’s a beautiful bomber that can easily deafen enemies and dropped the Czar Bomba. The tail turret can also fit a 6’4 person by the looks of things.
The B52 is superior it’s been updated and modernized more then the T95!!!With all the technologies of the United States my money would be on the B52 hands down!
Let's see...... B52 top speed.......650 MPH TU-95 top speed...575 MPH B52 Altitude.........50,000 Ft. TU-95 Altitude 45,000 Ft Those specs sort of speak for themselves.
No pilot would voluntarily fly the Tu-95 Bear. It's the loudest aircraft in the sky due to the fact that the tips of those giant propellors break the sound barrier. Can't imagine what it's like to be in that aircraft for hours and hours.
Did I already mention, that it sucks a ton to always stop the video and transform the numbers you give into understandable measures??? Please, please, please include metric measures into your video!!!
Hi grid, its my second comment here, i have a suggestion, but if ever its alr done in a vid dont mind this comment, how about u do mig 31 vs any interceptor, since mig 31 hasnt been in any of your videos yet i guess, so itll be good to do interceptor jets against each others
The b52 is probably the best as it has been in service with the USAF, especially with the sac wing since the early 60s( it is possibly been in service even earlier) the RAF had the mighty Vulcan bomber until it was withdrawn from service,
Based on the specs & performance data from this video the Big Ugly Fat F***ER or 'BUFF' is the clear winner over the Bear. For the first 20 years of my life I lived near a SAC base where a squadron of BUFFs was based. I could count on them launching and flying DIRECTLY OVER MY HOUSE at 3:00AM and awakening me from my peaceful sleep. These were the loudest airplanes in the entire U.S. Military fleet.
The TU 95 Junkers Nazi Engines are far more efficient but they can’t be replaced with modern engines. The B52 however will receive new engines and will bring it beyond T95 capabilities. The Electronics in the TU95 do not compare with the B52 either.
The bear all the way, because it is soooo cheap to maintain and operate and that's not even including all its other fun jobs it does besides being a bomber, which in all reality we have very little need of a heavy bomber that could be shot down by 1980's tech let alone 2020 tech. Realistically neither of these planes will ever be used as bombers in a legit war, the b1's and backfires will handle that and even then, look at Ukraine, I don't think the backfires bombed a single target, they launched cruise missiles and GTFO. I just want to add that maintaining the b52 is a giant waste of money. We don't need high flying heavy bombers you can pick up on radar 100+ miles out and can be shot down with man pads. If shit needs bombed, the b1 or the b2 does it or in rare cases the c130 drops a moab, they should be scrapped.
Tu-95 is not as sophisticated or high performing as the B-52, but the Russian Air Force has superiority in stand-off weaponry and especially cruise and hypersonic guided missiles. B-52 is a fine aircraft to use according to US philosophy, which requires it's use where the Americans pretty much have air control. Tu-95 does not require local air control, since most of it's weapons are long range.
Between these two it doesn’t matter. The Russian 400 Sam system can’t detect b2s, b21s’ f117’s, and probably f35’s in a nuclear war first to strike has a huge advantage. Especially when you’re talking about a couple hundred stealth aircraft and submarines, not to mention the follw up icbms. The paper Baratheon can’t take a ragtag Ukrainian resistant, what the us would do to them non nuclear would be a slaughter. Is Russia starting using nuclear weapons, our stealth bombers/ attack aircraft would end them in a couple days at most. With senile joe at the helm I’m not so sure, but next president won’t play as nice as senile where’s my pudding Joe.
I'm biased as an American towards USA Engineering, but the Bear is a true beast and very beautiful piece of engineering marvel. Esthetically the Bear is more attractive IMHO. Pray for peace amongst all nations. Viva Cristo Rey!
B52 track record and combat service over Vietnam is proof enough for me i have known soldiers including my oldest brother who served in Vietnam and remembers what he thought was a earthquake as b52s bombed targets he said you could feel the pressure change from the shockwaves
B-52 carries twice the payload at a higher speed and farther. And don't forget higher ceiling. Without using a slide rule to compute when it will get there and how much fuel it will need. This just shows how far the Soviets were back then and this war in Ukraine is showing how 1980's technology is shooting down the latest technology Russia has now. If a stinger can dow an SU-57 this just shows how far behind Russia still is.
Both planes are old and useless against normal air defense, and super-effective against some separatists with Kalashnikovs. The difference between them is only in price and service, the bear is a cheap trough that is living out its life, b 52 is a modernized expensive trough that will also end its journey soon.
It was great to see that the crew on the updated TU-95 still uses slide rules to make calculations. I guess that the crew on the original Bears used an abacus. Now that's training!
If either side starts jamming the US guy can always turn to super mario games on his monitor
@@sue08401 jajaja.... those bear crew are good whit a simple slide rule..they know how to navigate the old way if they have to ( No GPS, ect ) old fashion compass and star navigation in a war senario no tec can jam it.....and yes we have good pilots.. but we take out the navegators and put a GPS what will happen when the GPS system is jam or out off service.....we go back to the basic navegators skills... if you know or remember 🤔
All the Apollo program was designed, developed, and produced making use of the humble slide rule. You hippie.
The stratofortress is still a huge deterrent to the Soviets.
@@pattykuvshin yes you are right.... were were the computers in the 50's..all they have available was a slide rule to use..🤔
When you proudly refer to your machine as the "Big Ugly Fat Fuck" I gotta go with the B-52
I'll take the one that flies higher, faster, longer, with a higher rate of climb, carries more weapons, and is maintained by the USAF.
Exactly
AKA: Buff 💪
Thats a stupid comment concidering it really doesnt matter if the lesser aircraft still has the capability to unleash numerous cruise missile against you. Yes the B-52 is more capable but the Bear is more versatile. And once the missiles start flying it doesnt matter which aircraft launched them
@@glennoswald5928 Look at the accuracy,consult first in slide rules..your a joke🤣🤣🤣
@@alexanderlacambra8520 And your an ass. The Bear has seem combat in multiple countries for exaclty one yewr less than the B-52 and has performed more tasks and in more configurations than the B-52. Now the B-52 is most probably the best military aircraft ever produced , Ive stated thay in previous comments if you bothered to read them. But the fact is the Bear is currently and will continue to be a very capable aircraft capable of performing more roles than the B-52 is capable of carrying out. Focus on what the individual aircraft have actually done and not your prejudice on who mamufactored them. Only a fool bases their opinion on emotions instead of actual facts.
The TU-95 Bear is also one of the LOUDEST aircraft ever built! It can be tracked from hundreds of miles away by SOSUS (Sonar under the oceans) just by it's sound. I've heard Fighter Pilots complain about intercepting them, because they are so damned loud that they can't even hear the jet engines of the plane they are sitting in!
But is faster than the B52
@@elpupusero you didn't watch the video did you? The b52 is faster but surprisingly not that much faster.
@@elpupusero yeah no, the Tu-95 has a top speed of 575 mph while the B-52 has a top speed of 650 mph, it’s surprisingly not much of a difference but the B-52 is still faster by almost 100 mph
True. And imagine the Russians trying to use it as a commercial aircraft. LOl; Buy insurance for your ears prior to bording. . .
@@masterx11a On the long range radar sites in AK we encountered these bears quite often. I think the "top speed" of 575 is a gross exaggeration -- more like 510-520. Props, after all, and about half the climb rate. What does that tell you about power out-put?
As an American I swing to the B-52. Although one can not disrespect the Bear, two different approaches in design and they both are legendary. Just look at the service record of these giants, to last and serve their nations this long is a testament to just how great they and their engineering are!
eh, not really 2 different approaches if you consider the fact they are both successors of the the same root aircraft. They are both parented offshoots of the B-29 Superfortress.
@@Grisbane never thought of that! Your absolutely right!
@@Grisbane Well they straight up stole and copied the design and called it the TU-4
@@jeffcamp481
For some reason, I like the way the Tu-95 looks sitting on the ground. It looks really long legged with such tall landing gear. But I also like it for being unique. A swept wing, coaxial propeller driven, long range bomber and the last of it's kind. Both planes may have started from the same basic design, but there's no doubt that they're quite different too.
@@Phrancis5 Well technically yes and no.
No cause at the time the US and the Soviet Union were allies during late WW2. American B-29s that attacked Japanese Targets that had emergency trouble landed in the Soviet Union which during that part of the conflict was still neutral and thus legally detained the bombers.
Yes cause This is the Soviet Union we are talking about and Joseph Stalin was smart enough to realize that the B-29 was likely far superior to its Russian counterpart that was being developed so had his aircraft designers research, and make duplicates of the bombers thus pretty much stole them although they did return one of the craft.
Here's the fun part.
The Tu-4 were literally almost duplicates of the B-29. Looking exactly the same but with some russian modifications and additions thrown in. Different engines, guns, some modification to the frames to allow for tech the Russian's had.
However it also wasn't. The Russian's added some features that in many ways made their version of the Superfortress better. In a couple ways its one of the few cases where someone ripped off someones else's tech and improved on it.
Ironic that both in the end would carry a legacy for both superpowers.
The BUFF and the Bear being cusions.
They're both big, slow and dated technology. The B-52 has moved off to relatively uncontested airspace missions to remain relevant. The main thing both have going for them is both are paid for, still work and have a relatively low cost of operation.
The B-52 adapted better. The Bear remains a big ,loud, saber rattling target.
I agree with that, but B-52 costed way more ( with those lot of upgrade, engine, etc.)
It is a tool. Western powers first ensure air superiority, then the big hammers come in. The B-52 is perfect in the correct situation. Which is why it remained in use.
@@robertbusku5159 but US is 10x richer so they can make more buffs than bears.
With stand off weapons (such as AGM 86) and a powerful air force to back them up, they will always be relevant.
Tell those terrorist hiding in holes in the Afghan mountains how irrelevant the B-52 was. Every one of them shit their pants when they saw those contrails in the sky...they knew cluster bombs were comming.
The B-52 is a brute...80000 pounds of bombs!! Usually thou, we carried less..around 20000 to 30000...
As a B-52 ex crew chief The B-52 is boss. With it's ground follow radar that can fly under radar when the need arises. Among other features not mentioned due to classified information. I did not agree with the tail guns removed because as a last resort it is a good deturant. Since a tail gunner actually shot down a sam missile in flight over vietnam . When jamming did not work.
Sir, could you please tell me if besides the wings countermeasure dispensers, there are other countermeasure dispensers along the fuselage?
As an ex-USAF BUFF AMMO (weapons release) troop, it's no contest. Props? LOL!
Boss lol
Literally every B52 got shot down in Vietnam
The biggest honor I had in the AF was to give a B-52 crew chief an entire pallet of hydraulic fluid before they departed Anderson AFB on the way to Hanoi. He was very happy.
Thanks for ur service 🫡
Both are no longer considered deep penetration strategic bombers but have been repurposed as stand-off missile depots. In combat they will stay well away from the action and lob cruise missiles to targets.
That's bullshit. B 52 has a sorts of weapons mostly air to ground .
The B-52 is far more capable than just a missile truck and shooter. With its new engines, it will serve for many more years.
@Hendrix Cody I'm sorry I didn't word my comments correctly. I meant all sorts of weapons.
i was reading up the missiles that the TU-95 can launch, with range of 3000km, thats insane , most jets dont even have the fuel capacity to even intercept that
@@fetchalex6518 cruise missiles are air to ground
Just by reading the description, the BUFF is the "better" airframe. It is faster, has a greater payload, and longer range. They can both carry similar weapons load-outs, but the BUFF can carry more of everything, and deliver it faster and farther than the TU-95.
For it's advantages, the TU-95 can operate from more primitive airfields, and like the BUFF, uses the plentiful jet fuel (which is basically kerosene).
The B-52's warload is considerably greater than that of the Tu-95. Although the precise amount of munitions in terms of raw tonnage would of course vary widely depending on the mission profile, in terms of raw lifting power the B-52 can carry and deliver significantly more than the Bear. The Bear is still formidable, though, make no mistake.
@@williamjpellas0314 Had the question been, "Which is formidable," The answer would be "Both." Since the question was, "Which is better," the only accurate answer is "The BUFF."
@@xenaguy01 No disagreement here, sir. The B-52 can fly faster, farther, and with a heavier warload than the Bear.
There is nothing like seeing an ARC light strike from a B-52, saw them in Vietnam in 68-69 along the DMZ, you start seeing the bombs going off, just smoke going up to the heavens and then you hear the noise, but the planes are so high you cannot see them! Awesome!
Russian/Soviet design theory is "good enough.". 500plus MPH and 3,500 plus mission range is good enough to attack any Russian enemy. The B52 still has room for updates and could accept new mission profiles while the TU-95 is at the end of its ability's to move into new territory. It seems like this was done before the most recent engine upgrade to hi bypass, modern, fuel efficient engines
Both are awesome. Both should be appreciated as individual aircraft. Clearly, as a jet, the B52 has serious advantages but the Bear is a beast all on its own and as a non-jet is a marvel of engineering.
If i was a billioner i know what i will buy to impres the girls at air shows...😝😏
Yes. Much better than these annoying diesel pickups that the public has to endure on a daily basis in car centric USA from insecure small membered men in the country I was born into: Dumberica. I feel sorry for the masonic manipulated ww2 vets that fought and sometimes died into the retardedness we have seen unfold into Walmartmurica.
Just by looks I will always go for the B52. And if I see this list of specs, I will also go for the B52. It's just better in all ways possible then the TU95.
But the B52 lost its tailgun cannon. If it still had it I put it ahead of the TU95.
agree .. B52 wins , be even more useful when it gets the new engines
@@joet7136 tail guns don’t really serve a point anymore. Nobody gets close enough to hit with the guns. They just shoot a missle then dip
@@joet7136 And why should the B-52 have a machine gun?
I love these non biased videos. 10 out of 10
Yeah 'Defense Updates' is a bit full on with the anti-east stuff, he's right 99% of the time IMO, but its the "caught with their pants down" extra stuff added, like when Russian jets crash or something. You'll never see a vid on the USS Cole bombing type thing, even an analysis
Hands down the B-52 is much better. I believe some B-52's will still be in active service on their 100th birthday.
So will some Bears. The Bear can't fly as fast as the '52 and carries about half the payload but make no mistake -- it can kill you from hundreds of miles away.
@@garymartin9777 I still love the BUFF.
@@garymartin9777 so can our b-2 bomber deep in Russian Territory
IT SURE IS? if your going too take out terriosts on donkeys who dont use toilet paper, oh ya we tucked and ran leaveing 85 billion dollars worth of hardware and a trillion dollar base.
Hands down the Buff especially after she gets her new Engine’s all day long. Yahoo
The question is, as always, which version to compare. The skills are practically the same. One aircraft with cruise missiles is enough to destroy a medium-sized European country.
Agreed
you mean Russia, right?
....." a medium-sized US state."
One thing the video doesn't cover is the head. There isn't one on the '95 and is on the BUFF. Russian crews get to use a bucket!
Discussion over! I hate shitting in a bucket. Especially if I'm 5th in line!
I choose the b52 cause it has seen combat action in any us major conflict since the Vietnam war were as the tu95 only saw combat action in 2016 since its development in the 1950s
Murdering civilians in Vietnam
@@britishprofessor9957 Plenty of Vietnamese civilians got murdered after the US went on its way.
@@britishprofessor9957 Yeah… first time in history civilians were killed during war. Wait! I’m wrong. Wasn’t there some British WW2 bomber named “Lancaster” that bombed German civilians? 🙄 Save your faux moral outrage lesson, “Professor”.
@@terrystevens5261 So, you're saying everyone is guilty of bombing civilians? Good you picked up on their point
@@britishprofessor9957 out of the topic.it's the fault of military leaders.It doesn't change the fact that B52 is a great aircraft.after all it was designed to destroy enemies
The B-52 has the Russian plane beat in every catagory, so obviously it's the better aircraft.
yeah but pretty good for a propeller plane tho, if it switched to jet engines things might be different
@@sergeantblue6115 I dont think they should do that because if such a program was implemented, the budget would be low as fuck and most of it would go to the middle men's swimming pool and in the end the aircraft would be worse than what they started with.
@@generalmcarthur8401 they will have to decommission lots of stuff to since russia's economy is broken now
7:34 Not just loud, the TU-95 is so loud that there are some reports of submarine crews being able to hear the plane from underwater
I heard that to,the propellors echo a snappy sound that Carrys.
Propeller equipped aircraft can be detected by subs, but so can jet aircraft. Its just the footprint of the sound is larger on the props.
@@dakohli you're absolutely correct on your assumption of submarines detecting aircraft. If they are flying low enough they can be detected by the submarines passive sonar array.
@@dspates51 yep, our Sonar operators picked them up using pretty old kit on the Oberon class I went to sea in.
Even deep sea submarines can hear the plane
the bear is so loud that American stations in Alaska can hear them even when it's still flying in Russian territory.
what kind of station? And do Russian stations read B-52 flights on American territory?
In 1974 I was a radar tech on a EC-121 radar plane flying out of Iceland. I never saw a radar return from a B-52 but the largest, by far, Radar return I ever saw was from a TU-95. Huge spot on the scope.
So Tu-95 is trash at stealth then?
SOSUS can actually track the Bear. Imagine submarines being able to track your nuclear bomber. Thats the Soviets for you
@Steve Allen, I am assuming the propellors on the TU-95 was causing the huge radar return.
Is something you can confirm?
@@MaxCruise73 Since the return was so much stronger than other planes that would be my guess too. Lots of props going on on those planes. We directed F-4's to them and their returns were much smaller.
@@MaxCruise73 US subs using sonar can also pick up the noise caused by the props. Tom Clancy did an interview many years ago about russian hardware and got some good laughs about their effectiveness. Bear props were mentioned.
Another good comparison, keep em comin.
The Tu-95 Bear has a special place in my heart. It's just such a cool and unique looking aircraft. And the noise it makes is awesome. But, it's no match for the far more modern and better performing B52. Plus there are many MANY more B52's than Tu-95's.
Lol.... Between Old monster and Dangerous old monster... EKRANO PLANE of USSR, was Forgotten.. It can stay Under radar an only patrolling vessel could spot this Caspian Sea Monster 👌🤣🤣🤣
I love the TU-95. I even still play an old game about it!
In fact there are only about fifty something of each left in service, not much difference at all.
Bear has a nicer front profile at least, slick fuselage and firm jaw lol
Better Windows as well they are wider allowing for better line of sight the B-52 while a great plane as smaller window panes which mean more supports meaning less line of sight!
But the passenger jet version of the Bear is much better looking without that ugly Pinocchio refueling snout sticking out 20 ft.
The B52 can climb three times faster to get out of Dodge.
Still cant out fly a missile look at the number shot down over Vietnam and now anti aircraft missile are 1,000% more capable
"Ferry range 10,145 miles, Combat radius 8,800 miles"... Perhaps someone doesn't know what "radius" means.
We dont need weapons, we need an peacefull world! Put them in a museum!
F 117😊😊😊😊😊😊serbia daun...😅😅😅😊😊😊😊budjanovac stelt😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
It's not even close, the B-52 is better in every aspect.
Judging from the action radiuses of both American Soviet/Russian airplanes, be they bombers or fighters, my conclusion:
- American bombers and fighters were designed to travel all the way to the USSR/Russia and lay waste to the entire country;
- Soviet/Russian bombers and fighters always have had rather short action radiuses, meaning they were designed to defend the Soviet/Russian nation, rather than doing what the Americans intended to do.
I don't have to watch 1 second of this video to automatically know the United States fields a way better bomber. Because Russia's janky and they build jank equipment . Ever seen a Russian car driving down the road?
B-52 has better specs but TU-95 looks much cooler
Nope. Some specs of Tu-95 are much better than B-52
@@AlexanderTch Really? Care to share where we can read up on those Tu-95s that are “much better”?
@@AlexanderTch what specs?
@@AlexanderTch tu 95 looks like dc3 plane those days it is not a good looks, I love the shape of the B52.
@@banana03 B-52 looks like big fat barrel. Tu-95 looks elegant, slim, though together with power. You lie, it does not look like any plane in the world ever built.
So, neither are fast, neither are maneuverable, both are radar visible and both can carry a huge load of weapons which carry themselves into the war zone while the aircraft stays well away.
It seems the "best" would be what would be the cheapest to operate. The cheaper they are, the more of them your can operate and the more firepower you can get into a conflict.
Has the Bear ever had to deal with anyone really shooting at it? I think not, so big points to the BUFF!
Actuall if you did any type of reserch you'd know that the Bears have been involved in numerous combat missions have a number have be3n shot down just like the B-52's in Vietnam
@@glennoswald5928 did the enemy has air defence systems like the one send to veitnam by soviets ?
@@randombully3798 Actually yes they did . Just about every conflict in the world today is supported by either the Russians or the US. So yes the anti aircraft systems they confronted were either against their own anti aircraft systems or American made systems . In some countries like Ethiopia they even faced a combination of both Russian and American anti aircraft weapons.
@@glennoswald5928 The Tu-95 has never had a combat loss, and has only been used in combat during the Russian involvement in Syria, where it launched cruise missiles, from well outside the range of any surface to air threats.
@@glennoswald5928 "Actuall if you did any type of reserch you'd know that the Bears have been involved in numerous combat missions..."
I just did a quick google web search and came up with nothing for the combat record of the Tu-95 Bear bomber. Perhaps you can share with us some of the "numerous combat missions" that you allege that the Tu-95 Bear has been involved in?
The Us Boeing b-52 stratofortress is way better than the ugly Russian tu-95 bear.
The B52 has remained in service because it is still the best at what it does. The Russian Bear is still around because it is all they have. But I wish we would simply put an end to war.
It's not even a question, which is better... clearly the B-52 is.
Why replace the B52? It’s perfect at its job
Ones you hear the TU95 coming, you only got 3 to 4 hours to get to the bunker.
Both of these aircraft are awesome and have been adapted to different roles as time rolls on. Both now might be deadlier than ever as neither need to be enemy air space penetrators anymore. They are now both standoff range cruise missile trucks.
which, by the way, means a modified B767 could do the job (ok exaggarate but these are not "fighter aircraft" anymore like when they were supposed to fly into mordor and evade flak and enemy fire)
The Tu-95 descends directly from the B-29 with two models in between (the Tu-80 an Tu-85). The B-52 was a complete departure from the B-29 philosophy. They took different directions to solve the problem with early low power high consumption jet engines. B-52 is of course better.
I was aboard a Navy ship just outside of Haiphong Harbor during Operation Linebacker II in December and January 1972 -73. Raids of 120+ B-52s each dropped over 100 500lb. bombs each on Haiphong and Hanoi. No conventional warfare has ever been more damaging.
But the big USA with all her weapons lost this war against this little country! *hahahaha*
@@torstenpflug5084 The military did not lose the war… the Democrat politicians did.
@@Primus54 CLOWN! You lost in Vietnam just as you did in Iraq and Afghanistan...because the local people were always prepared to fight one day longer than the occupiers.
@@DanA-fk6tl Do you feel better now that you’ve gotten that off your chest? 🙄
@@Primus54 Nixon was Republican
I like 🐻
I don't know about better lol they both are pretty tough to me (monsters actually! ). I may be in the USA and have pride in my country but I do have sense enough to respect the adversary we could face! lol
The TU-95 was largely designed by captive German engineers in the postwar era.
Plenty of US aeronautical engineers had curious accents in the 1950s too!
No, it wasn't...
Definitely the B-52 hands down
B52 WINS EASILY.
The latest upgrade for the Tu-95 is a new slide rule for bombing missions.
Practically everything in USA inventory is better, but russia has good rockets and missiles they seem to focus on that because of limited government funds
They're gonna expend all their PGMs destroying Ukrainian apartment blocks though lol
The last brand new B-52 came off the production line in 1962. The Tu-95 ceased production in 1993. Both have been upgraded in their respective careers.
It doesn't matter when the last production unit came out but how was it upgraded through the years
The Reason the TU-95 still uses Turbo Probs instead of Jet Engines is too reduce Stress on the Frame something that the B-52 has countered by having each B-52 run less Flight Hours they just use a spare one something Russia has few spares off so have to use less power engines to reduce downtime and maintenance costs!
Also Jets cost more to run due to being more complex and having parts wear-out faster!
That may be one reason. Another is you don't fix what isn't broken. They are fuel efficient and fly 100 mph less top speed compared to the BUFF.
Turbo Props are much more economical and require much less fuel. B-52 with its 8 engines burn train of fuel each flight. Tu-95 is much less in size with similar characteristics. That's why Tu-95 is also used for intercontinental surveillance flights and B-52 are not
@@AlexanderTch All good points that I missed, Thanks!
Interesting. So basically better is more expensive in ops and repair.
@11B 2J while the B-52 is arguable the best military aircraft ever produced The Bear is far more versatile . It can do a dozen jobs like anti ship ,anti submarine , Recon, Radar jamming, ground control, The US ideals is to build seperate aircraft for each specific requirement . Thats why the US has 10x's The military budget of the next five military's combined . It keeps Americans employed and makes congressmen rich. The Russain strategy ot to make there military hardware as versatile as possible using single airframes to do numerous requirements .
Fun fact most US Milkitary Computers including those in planes use Power8 or Newer Power9 CPU's & GPU's from Power Imagination (aka the people that make Apples GPU's for ARM SoC's!) why as it is less common than X86 CPU's they are harder to hack Espcially the Power9 as it is Open Source so anyone can alter Architecture and Micro-Code making it even harder still to hack, The US is also Switching from Megalithic Kernels to newer (Easier to code for and audit but also more secure and faster too boot & reboot when needed but also reduces the frequency of reboots as all sectors of the Kernel can reboot on they fly in just a few seconds after an update, power surge or kernel panic!) Micro-Kernels further Improving Security!
Power9 CPU's (By IBM!)
Power Imagination GPU's
Micro-Kernels
Why not use ARM as that is British Tech owned by the Japanese
Why not use X86 as it is far to common meaning knowledge on how to attack it is far more common making it easier to code Malware for!
Why not use RISC-V it is not yet Mature Enough too run Complex Tasks!
Why not use VLIW like Russia, Well because Russia is using it making it a Security Risk as well as not as Fast or powerful as x86 or Power9!
Power9 is used is Mainframes, Super Computers & DATA Centres as it is more Powerful than most x86 CPU's and is more Secure as well (Partly due to being far less common but also Customisable by anyone that knows what they are doing!) thus meaning anyone can buy one as is by IBM or a Partner or have a Custom Version Designed and Built with no Fee's or Licenses needed unlike ARM or x86 Processors!
Power9 supports Open CAPPI which is faster than NVIMe 4.0
Power9 Supports upto 4 Threads per core meaning a Quad Core Power9 CPU has 16 Virtual Cores (aka Threads!)
Power9 has far less Micro-Code than x86 meaning it is faster not supporting Ancient Code for Processes that are no longer used or needed thus greatly speeding up tasks and freeing up internal memory!
Power9 Supports over 1TB of RAM Nativly something only certain x86 processors can do at ATM only Apples M1's and Custom Server ARM Chips support!
Nice.
The B-52 is bigger, faster, weighs less, has a greater range, greater climb rate, greater flight ceiling, and has more than twice the payload capacity. And it was put into service a year earlier than the Tu-95. There is no question which one is better.
Tu 95 is cheaper to operate and has better range, burns less fuel than the turbo fan.
@@ivelinis the B-52 has a cruise speed roughly equivalent to the Tu-95’s maximum speed, so the B-52 can accomplish the same mission in less time. On top of that the B-52 carry’s more than twice the payload of the Tu-95, so it would take more than twice the number of Tu-95’s to accomplish the same mission as the B-52. It is true the Tu-95 is more fuel efficient, but it doesn’t even come close to having twice the fuel efficiency of the B-52. Therefore, in the long run, since the B-52 can carry more than twice the payload while using only about 25% more fuel, the B-52 is actually more economical to operate. It costs less per pound of delivered payload if the bombs are delivered from a B-52, because it has far superior engineering. And once the B-52 re-engine program is complete (2030), the B-52 will be more fuel efficient than the Tu-95. Both have mid air refueling so range is irrelevant. Both planes are only restricted by the endurance of the pilots.
@@willymac5036 speed is irrelevant here. Tu 95 can go further, it works perfectly for Russia, and especially when deployed in Arctic. Can get close to USA and with a few hypersonic Zircon on board, don't need to carry loads. B52 works for the US well. I think is one of the reasons Russia not to retire the tu95, the hypersonics
@@ivelinis speed is ALWAYS relevant in combat. Always has been, always will be.
The fact that at the projected lifespan the B52 will have it in service for ~90 years before being retired IF they don't get another modernisation and extension is not talked about enough.
I WILL TAKE THE PLANE WITH ENGINES INSTEAD OR ROTORS.
Bear carry 30k lbs of missle vs b52 carry 70k lbs of missles. That's crazy
Бомб а не ракет. Самый модернизированный б-52 несет 16 ракет, самый модернизированный ту-95 18
B-52: AMAZING LONGEVITY DUE TO ORIGINAL DESIGN & CONSTANT UP-GRADES THRU THE YEARS DUE TO THE EVER-CHANGING GEO-POLITICAL WORLD SITUATION.
Many of these aircraft flew against each other (same missions at the same time), decades ago. I'm afraid these old warriors will one again strike up their rivalry, very soon.
TU95, is strong like bull, but B52, is smart like tractor!
It should be noted that one of of the reason Soviet bombers have a lower payload weight is generally due to the size of the munitions it carries. Typically it's checked as Number x type of munition. You will see this in the tu160 as well.
The combat radius is also a matter of combat doctrine. As you'd find, the B52 combat radius appears to be alot higher but it's a gimmick. This is because they don't expect the B52 to return to the same airbase.
Aerial refuelling????
@@Cyricaaa aerial refueling is not accounted for when checking this distance. If refueling is accounted for then the range would've been the maximum number of continuous engine operating hours X the level of output. Both aircraft have longer ranges with refueling but it doesn't affect my original comment.
Also, gays are nasty spawns of evil. If you believe in God then know this was only one of two times he sought no explanation. If you don't believe in God, I hate your kind regardless
They just don't expect the tu160 to return period.
People should look up the ghost rider ac130. It's a beast
The BUFF is by far the superior aircraft. Seen them all the time in my 20 year AF career.
300,000 lbs of sea mines can be carried on the B-52?
Somebody went nuts with their zeros.
That's 150 tons.........wrong.
*We should have built 3000 of them*
Come on man!! There's no comparison she may be old but she's very very reliable and no one else had anything like that in her category
The Tu-95 could be made into an airliner (the Tu-114 executive transport and Tu-116 airliner). The B-52 shared tech with an airliner, but was never converted into one.
And your point? we have purpose built airliners that perform that task better.
Weapons payload more important than flight performance these days. Edge: B 52
But… both are pretty much equal in the “stand off” roll.
The person at minute 5:17 is using a slide rule to calculate. My respect.
The wings and counter rotating turboprop gear systems of the TU95 was designed by German POW engineers of Junkers and Heinkel....
The B-52 is by far the superior bomber for the statistics given.
Both are amazing and timeless aircraft.
why not talk about the price of each? 100 million for the b52 and 25 million for the tu 95. If we're talking 1 to 1 then B 52 is better, but if we're talking same price so 4 TU 95s then ill take the TU 95
Hands down nothing compares to the 52 B bomber
I’d easily pick the bear. It’s a beautiful bomber that can easily deafen enemies and dropped the Czar Bomba.
The tail turret can also fit a 6’4 person by the looks of things.
USA should make a modernized version of the famous giant flying wing Northop YB49 :-)
The B52 is superior it’s been updated and modernized more then the T95!!!With all the technologies of the United States my money would be on the B52 hands down!
Let's see......
B52 top speed.......650 MPH
TU-95 top speed...575 MPH
B52 Altitude.........50,000 Ft.
TU-95 Altitude 45,000 Ft
Those specs sort of speak for themselves.
No pilot would voluntarily fly the Tu-95 Bear. It's the loudest aircraft in the sky due to the fact that the tips of those giant propellors break the sound barrier. Can't imagine what it's like to be in that aircraft for hours and hours.
i got a friend that told me his grandpa used to operate Bear for a couple months, his description told that dual layer ear protection is a necessity
Did a Bear drop the Tsar Bomba back in the day? Or was that a different platform?
Yes it did
It was a slightly modified TU-95
Did I already mention, that it sucks a ton to always stop the video and transform the numbers you give into understandable measures??? Please, please, please include metric measures into your video!!!
Hi grid, its my second comment here, i have a suggestion, but if ever its alr done in a vid dont mind this comment, how about u do mig 31 vs any interceptor, since mig 31 hasnt been in any of your videos yet i guess, so itll be good to do interceptor jets against each others
Mig 31 vs which aircraft??
Mig-31 vs Panavia Tornado, both are interceptor jets
Pls stay tuned we have forwarded your request to our production department.
@@Grid88 Okay thank you.
The b52 is probably the best as it has been in service with the USAF, especially with the sac wing since the early 60s( it is possibly been in service even earlier) the RAF had the mighty Vulcan bomber until it was withdrawn from service,
B-52 hands down. However, with the advent of the air launched cruise missile...the Bear is just as relevant.
Based on the specs & performance data from this video the Big Ugly Fat F***ER or 'BUFF' is the clear winner over the Bear. For the first 20 years of my life I lived near a SAC base where a squadron of BUFFs was based. I could count on them launching and flying DIRECTLY OVER MY HOUSE at 3:00AM and awakening me from my peaceful sleep. These were the loudest airplanes in the entire U.S. Military fleet.
The TU 95 Junkers Nazi Engines are far more efficient but they can’t be replaced with modern engines. The B52 however will receive new engines and will bring it beyond T95 capabilities. The Electronics in the TU95 do not compare with the B52 either.
The bear all the way, because it is soooo cheap to maintain and operate and that's not even including all its other fun jobs it does besides being a bomber, which in all reality we have very little need of a heavy bomber that could be shot down by 1980's tech let alone 2020 tech. Realistically neither of these planes will ever be used as bombers in a legit war, the b1's and backfires will handle that and even then, look at Ukraine, I don't think the backfires bombed a single target, they launched cruise missiles and GTFO.
I just want to add that maintaining the b52 is a giant waste of money. We don't need high flying heavy bombers you can pick up on radar 100+ miles out and can be shot down with man pads. If shit needs bombed, the b1 or the b2 does it or in rare cases the c130 drops a moab, they should be scrapped.
Tu-95 is not as sophisticated or high performing as the B-52, but the Russian Air Force has superiority in stand-off weaponry and especially cruise and hypersonic guided missiles. B-52 is a fine aircraft to use according to US philosophy, which requires it's use where the Americans pretty much have air control. Tu-95 does not require local air control, since most of it's weapons are long range.
Between these two it doesn’t matter. The Russian 400 Sam system can’t detect b2s, b21s’ f117’s, and probably f35’s in a nuclear war first to strike has a huge advantage. Especially when you’re talking about a couple hundred stealth aircraft and submarines, not to mention the follw up icbms. The paper Baratheon can’t take a ragtag Ukrainian resistant, what the us would do to them non nuclear would be a slaughter. Is Russia starting using nuclear weapons, our stealth bombers/ attack aircraft would end them in a couple days at most. With senile joe at the helm I’m not so sure, but next president won’t play as nice as senile where’s my pudding
Joe.
If I was a bad guy on eather side I'd cry very large tears if I was anywhere near their target zone.
well done keep going!👏👌👍💯
I'm biased as an American towards USA Engineering, but the Bear is a true beast and very beautiful piece of engineering marvel. Esthetically the Bear is more attractive IMHO. Pray for peace amongst all nations. Viva Cristo Rey!
B52 track record and combat service over Vietnam is proof enough for me i have known soldiers including my oldest brother who served in Vietnam and remembers what he thought was a earthquake as b52s bombed targets he said you could feel the pressure change from the shockwaves
B-52 carries twice the payload at a higher speed and farther. And don't forget higher ceiling. Without using a slide rule to compute when it will get there and how much fuel it will need. This just shows how far the Soviets were back then and this war in Ukraine is showing how 1980's technology is shooting down the latest technology Russia has now. If a stinger can dow an SU-57 this just shows how far behind Russia still is.
based TU-95 slide-rule using operator vs cringe B-52 computer nerd operator
It is not the weapon as much as the warrior that wields it.
You can't have good kit AND big boats for Putins friends. Unfortunately for Russia their president chose big boats for his friends.
Both planes are old and useless against normal air defense, and super-effective against some separatists with Kalashnikovs. The difference between them is only in price and service, the bear is a cheap trough that is living out its life, b 52 is a modernized expensive trough that will also end its journey soon.