Words of Advice:

"If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

"Foreign Relations Boil Down to Two Things: Talking With People or Killing Them." -- Unknown

"Mobs Do Not Storm the Capitol to Do Good Deeds." -- not James Lee Burke

"Colt .45s; putting bad guys underground since 1873." -- Unknown

"Stay Strapped or Get Clapped." -- probably not Mr. Rogers

"Let’s eat all of these people!” — Venom

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Sunday, March 31, 2013

Your Sunday Morning Jet Noise

Turboprops count, if they're big enough. And they didn't come bigger than the Tu-95!

The Tu-95 was the Soviet equivalent of the B-52. The Russians plan to fly it about as long as our Air Force plans to fly the B-52.


LRod said...

Love how the strobe effect of the video makes those props look. Very busy front of the wings, there.

ZJX, ORD, ZAU retired

Old NFO said...

Spent a little time chasing Bear-Fs over the years, they ARE big bastards!

BadTux said...

Except the Bears currently flying were all built in the late 1980's, while the last B-52 was built in 1962. So they're roughly 25 years younger than the B-52's in terms of airframe and engine, though the Bear as a bomber was originally delivered in the mid 1950's and thus pre-dates the B-52.

The cool thing about the Bear is its unrefueled range of 9,400 miles. The thing can fly almost halfway around the globe before needing to be refueled, which is why it can take off from Russia, loiter along the East Coast, and land in Cuba while hauling cruise missiles and without refueling. B-52's have flown further unrefueled, but only by cheating and carrying internal fuel cells rather than bombs (unrefueled range for a loaded B-52H is commonly held to be 8,600 miles).

Like the B-52, the Tu-95 is a fairly conventional design with no frufru to it. I think that's why both bombers have been so long-lived, they weren't beholden to any particular theory of how bombers should be used in combat thus as times have changed, were easily modified to meet current needs. A B-2 will never carry under-wing cruise missiles -- its composite airframe is simply not capable of being modified in such a way. The B-1's sweep wings limit what can be slung under its wings too, whereas with a B-52, if you need something different under the wings, you just slap a new pylon under there and carry it. In a way it's a shame that the B-52's plans and tooling were long ago scrapped, while the B-1 and B-2's plans are carefully archived and their tooling stored in climate-controlled warehouses at Davis-Monthan. It ought to be the other way around...