Why Tu-95 Still Has A Tail Gun?

Explore the intriguing reason behind the TU-95 bomber's tail gun retention, a unique, enduring feature in modern aviation warfare.
Subscribe for more aviation videos. We'll be uploading new videos every week!

[@buckystarfinger2487]

The tail Gunner's have a very strong union. They can't get rid of them.

[@265gtbferrari]

So someone can tell the pilot when they see parts flying off

[@ListopediaYT]

😂 😂 😂

[@forexed8948]

The tail gunners are the guys who will never see the plane that kills them but they go up anyway.

[@HootOwl513]

It gives a Comrade a job. Also Targetting Guidance Radars are expensive plutocratic toys. The Tail Gunner Comrade knows if he misses he will be shot by the State for Treason.

[@curtisthomas2670]

Tailguns are automated

[@HootOwl513]

@@curtisthomas2670 B-52D Tailguns [Quad .50 Cal] were first manned, then automated and the gunner's station was moved rorward and remotely operated, and was finally deleted. The USAF claims 2 tail gun kills [and one probable] from the Viet Nam War.

[@ironmask5308]

Weapon design comes down to balancing quality vs quantity. Russia has decided it wants neither.

[@dantewolf707]

Cope, Russia is wiping NATO-backed Ukraine.

[@timwingham8952]

Having spoken to a few pilots and navs who served on RAF QRA Lighntings and Phantoms, the thinking about defensive guns on the Bear (and Badger) was that the presence of bomber gun defence meant it negated the idea of intercepting fighters engaging with guns themselves. Of course, if it actually came to a shooting war fighters would destroy a large bomber with a missile, (these days from beyond visual range), but...the presence of defensive guns means it has to be a missile engagement to have the upper hand.

[@jugganaut33]

The Tu95M is automated. It’s effectively a compact Airborne CiWs. That radome above the operator is capable of tracking incoming missiles and attempting to intercept them. Whilst it deploys chaffe and flares.

[@thecactusman17]

That would be interesting if it weren't for 2 problems:
1: Russia can't reliably use high quality automated systems like the CWIS on their naval ships, there's no possible way they've managed to miniaturize even better technology.
2: Even if the missiles become visible on radar, modern stealth aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 won't. By the time the missiles are launched it will be far too late for the TU-95 crew to properly activate countermeasures.

[@poopee34]

@@thecactusman17 The TU-95 is definitely not carrying air to air missiles, it carries long range cruise missiles that can travel on the low end 1500 kilometers this would let them strike ground targets well before f-22 and f-35 can fire AIM-120 which can only travel 120 mi in its latest config,

[@thecactusman17]

@@poopee34 The difference is that F-35s will be well within A2A missile range before a TU-95 is within cruise missile range.
Also laughable comparison anyway. Russian equipment is notoriously unreliable when pushed to technological limits - 1500km and they can't even reliably hit stationary buildings without SAM interference. The USA also lies about it's military tech - in the opposite direction. They notoriously _understate_ weapon capabilities. That's why the USA has continued to use the F-15 platform without any recorded air to air combat losses for over 40 years. Meanwhile the Russians and Chinese have "stealth" aircraft which have radar cross sections at their lowest point orders of magnitude larger than what the US will publicly admit to on the new aircraft.

[@spuwho]

The tail gun here is not much different than a sea going ship containing a Phalanx style defense pod. When a inbound missile is detected and the countermeasures are not effective, the "final" counter is to simply shoot it.

[@Solnoric]

Basically, they haven't changed the defenses because they can't afford to?

[@gadielplays2419]

For some reason the guy forgot to mention that the gun is there because its used to shooot chaff and flares

[@multigodslayer1760]

Their equipment is so outdated its borderline North Korean levels.

[@TheFlameofIcarus]

TBF, the B-52 is an older aircraft design. (Granted, the weapons systems, sensors, and computers have all been updated, so it's up to how upgraded the TU-95s systems are... which knowing Russia isn't all that much)

[@markkussusa]

​@@TheFlameofIcarusprobably just enough to perform their tasks reliably

[@fartmoderne7205]

@@markkussusa”reliably”

[@markkussusa]

@@fartmoderne7205 reliably in real world conditions... Not just in lab-like conditions like most western designs are expected to operate.
Kinda like the old VW Beatle that could be repaired by any layman (of its time) vs our modern BMWs and Chevys that gotta roll into the dealership with any error code lighting up.

[@vumba1331]

Must be the case, after all Russia can only make hypersonic missiles while USA still cannot, must be their outdated technology........

[@kpadmirer]

B-52s in the Viet Nam war shot down at least two MiGs with their tail guns.

[@sneakysnek8416]

Vietnam was such a long time ago, i dont think thats a valid arguement

[@izawa9211]

I mean if you can you might aswell

[@brook280]

B52 HAS REAR GUNS

[@marciethomas5766]

I'm sorry. A few years back, the B52H got rid of the gunner. However, it did have a 20 mm Gatling cannon, very similar to the one on the B58. The B52H is the only model still flying and might be replaced in 2050.

[@gavinoreilly1501]

The B-52 had its tail guns removed in the Gulf War (The 90’s).