As a retired 20 year USAF veteran, I can assure you the "BUFF" is not known to anyone in the Air Force as the "Big Ugly Fat Fellow"... it stands for something else.
Crew comfort. You're going on a 24 + hour mission you can choose a plane that is so loud submarines can hear it. it's cramped and has very little in the way of creature comforts. this results in fatigue and all that goes along with it. The B52 is getting a multitude of upgrades to make the flight more enjoyable.
There'a also the fact that the B-52 has been used in combat a heck of a lot more than the Tu-95 over the last 69 years since it first entered service. There's a body of military doctrine that has been built up over the decades for the B-52 and newer weapons systems that have expanded the types of missions wherein the B-52 can be deployed.
It’s worth taking in account the the b52 has been used in countries without an actual army and without any air defense. Also in Vietnam 31 of them got shot down.
The TU-95 dropped and detonated the biggest bomb men ever created, the tsar bumba and the crew barely made out of the blast. I just thought it was very fascinating
Having a stick with a porcupine attached to it is more interesting than an AK-47... but I'd much rather have an AK-47 in a battle than a stick with a porcupine attached to it.
I guess both planes serve it' s purpose, with the obvious trade offs when it comes to performance. Next week I would like to see the comparison between the " White Swan" TU - 160 , and the best the USA has to offer. Thank you very much in advance.
Hands down, I will place my vote for the B-52. No mention was made regarding the maintenance of the planes. Certainly spare parts, ease and the amount of maintenance required would be an important aspect to consider along with crew comfort. As far as radar cross sections there’s simply no way to hide planes as large as B-52 or Russian Bear. One must note the difference in payload, 70,000lbs for the B-52 vs 33,000lbs for the Bear.❤
День тому
You will never see a Tu95 carrying 33,000 lb though. Maybe if it carried iron... In general, a full load would be about 20,000 lb.
how can you possible compare the cost of anything built in America to something made in russia just to get you started the average wage in russia is around 700 US dollars a month .. Add to that we have our own high tech industry Russia relies on western high tech .. You should be able to take it from there
@@timfreeman3826 just as couple examples of many many examples the US first Stealth aircraft first entered service in the 1980s, Russia still doesn't have one ! How many actual Aircraft Carriers are in the Russian navy 0 , the US has 20 --11 Super Carriers and 9 assault carriers . Having served I am glad the US spends what it does on the tools we need to fight with.. I can tell by your comment you haven't served
@@randym7961 You know... money values are different too in different countries, if Russian tanks were built in America they would obviously be higher in unit cost because the standards for the engineers and other workers are different, and same the other way around.
During my cruise aboard the Nimitz aircraft carrier in 1985 every morning at exactly 8:00 am two Russian TU-95’s would do a low-level pass over the Nimitz.
Wow I always thought thought the Bear had a larger payload, the F-15E Strike Eagle can carry 4,500 lbs more that it can. That is a crazy difference in the fact the Buff can carry double that of what the TU-95 does.
Tupolev was built as a defensive weapon, ...to carry a very light nuclear load therefore no need for jet engines. The B52 was designed as an offensive weapon to carry out American attacks around the world using heavy conventional weaponry and regular bombs. Both are still good at what they were designed for, that's why both are still in service.
B52, a jet, top speed: 660 MPH. TU-95, A turboprop, top speed 575 MPH. B52, maximum altitude: 50,000 feet. TU-95, maximum altitude, 45,000 feet. Let the specs speak for themselves.
Both are excellent platforms and will be around for a long time to come! Detectability is irrelevant, as Both can launch standoff weapons from far beyond any air defence systems!
In terms of heavy Bomber and Huge Range and payload B52 standouts and since its jet powered its speedy also main point Russia should also have developed an low speed bomber like B52
The Tupolev is nothing but a reverse engineered B-29 which the airframe is based on. The B-52 was a revolutionary airframe for the time it was introduced. Upgrades over the decades have made it even more formidable. The range of the B-52 due to its air refueling capabilities gives it a truly global reach. The TU-95 is a good recon aircraft, and effective as a combat aircraft using standoff munitions like cruise missiles. The B-52 excels at nuclear strategic bombing, carpet bombing, as well as deploying standoff munitions. Even with upgrades, the Bear is dated. The BUFF however, is aging like "fine wine." Both still have a place in air combat for the 21st Century. A testament to the design and versatility of both airframes.
The TU-95 has swept wings, the B-29 (TU-4) did not. When the B-29 was copied in the Soviet Union it became the TU-4 The TU-95 may have some features you may think is similar to the B-29, it was a totally new design not reversed engineered. The TU-95 has been upgraded for air to air refueling.
The notion that the TU-95 can stay in the air longer is not entirely true. Because the U.S Air Force operates the largest fleet of “flying gas stations “ , the range if the B-52 is incredible. Basically only being measured in continuous hours of flight and not distance. The B-52 can stay in the air for just over 72 hours at a time. Only being limited to the fatigue of the flight crew. Russia has 20 refueling planes. The U.S. has 560. Also with the new R&R engines the B-52 non refueled combat range is 8800 miles. Comparing these two planes is like comparing the Wright flyer to an F-16.
A respectable attempt to suggest there's some parity between the B-52 and the TU-95. Although there's parity in some features, e.g., speed and range, as a heavy bomber the key factor is payload, and the B-52 has almost twice the payload of the TU-95. Mic drop.
The TU-95 is an interesting and typically Soviet "rough and ready" aircraft, but in terms of performance and utility there's no real comparison with the B-52.
Which one is better? Well, the double propeller on the Tu-95 cancels torque and vibration, giving it a long range (no hype there). B52 USAF pilots and crews would mutiny in Vietnam from flying missions, and the Hanoi Hilton was packed with pilots and crews, so there's no Hype there either. It's a Tie
Depends on the mission. In an ant--ship missile role they will both do the job. In a traditional bomber role they are both vulnerable to anti-air systems. However in this role the B-52 would operate as part of a coordinated strike package thus reducing its vulnerability. The Russian have little to no experience in these kind of strikes and have shown little talent for it in Ukraine.
Considering the us doesnt need that extended range do to the fact we have air bases all around the world we dont need the range. So ill take the almost double pay load.
B52 would have been a legendary success but its jet turbine engines are just too inefficient. TU95BEAR uses props and is very efficient and affordable. TU95BEAR
Tupolev was built as a defensive weapon, ...to carry a very light nuclear load therefore no need for jet engines. The B52 was designed as an offensive weapon to carry out American attacks around the world using heavy conventional weaponry and regular bombs. Both are still good at what they were designed for, that's why both are still in service.
Why do you guys make that excuse, everytime you guys say it had a different purpose but that is not the case here the bear was supposed to travel far to reach America and back. That's what everyone was striving for then and now a bomber that can travel long distances.
@@im-a-mexican-knockedout-snorin The B52 was designed to carry large conventional loads. Multitude of bombs to be dropped in offensive attacks. Tu-95 was designed as a defensive deterrent, ...a plane to carry a small load, a single nuclear bomb (or nowadays a nuclear tipped missile or two). The B52 took part in many bombings in various American attacks. The Tu-95 never saw action. Both machines are still fulfilling their design objectives and therefore remain in service. One as an offensive weapon the other defensive. That is the main difference between the two bombers.
@sezwo5774 you are wrong, tu 95 was built to strike America and return to Russia, it was built offensively for a first strike. That's what America and Russia was aiming for but the russians fell short
@@im-a-mexican-knockedout-snorin Tu-95 was never used. Why? Because of its deterrence. It was built to be a deterrent and defensive weapon. It was extremely succesful. Without it probably Russia would have been attacked. B52 on the other hand was built as an offensive tool and found implementation in many American bombing campaingns all over the planet. Both are fulfilling their roles until today, that is why both are still in service.
Maybe true, but with today's missile's. They don't need to be close to their targets, you don't even hear bomber or missiles before it's good night for ever.
Can you please tell me how much the tsar bomba weight . oh I know it's 60,000 lb and the tu 95 bear is the only plane that carry it . And you said the tu95 bear can only carry 40,000 lb
To accommodate the Tsar bomba, the Tu-95 had previously been extensively modified and lightened. The bomb bay and fuel tank doors had been removed. The flight characteristics of the aircraft, speed and range, were significantly reduced.
You cannot compare a jet with a turbopropeller aeroplane. The only valid basis for comparison is their service life which are similar for both aircrafts.
Both are long range strategic bombers intended deploy, initially, unguided bombs, and then used to deploy stand off cruise missiles. Just because the Tu-95 uses inferior piston engines doesn't make incomparable with the B-52.
@@ImBigFloppa comparing it to the Tu-160 blackjack will have made a lot more sense. That's why the Soviets kept trying to outmatch the B-52. Speed, ceiling, payload, power plants... weight... Performance not intention is what defines an aircraft's role.
@@Noblepilot_abrahamvwi_aeroplan Extremely long range subsonic strategic bomber intended to be the cheapest to operate. B-52 and Tu-95. B-52 is significantly better in every regard Long range supersonic bomber intended to penetrate enemy air defenses and unleash a massive amount of bombs. B-1B and Tu-160. The Tu-160 was never intended to replace the Tu-95 because the Tu-95 was significantly cheaper to operate. It was built as a response to the B-1B, which was built as a replacement for the B-52, but never really panned out as ICBMs took over as the primary nuke delivery system and bombers became conventional delivery systems.
@@ImBigFloppa can't be any truer. As a pilot, I am just talking from a professional standpoint. Military doctrines and tactics differ from country to country;One super power to the other. I agree with you even though my argument was from the point of the engines. When you see a jet versus a turboprop, you can tell right away that the jet outperforms the turborop in every respect as you can see in the video even if it's got contrarotating engines. Just more noisier. 😀
The B-52 and the TU-95 were released into active service apart from each other , and both have had a lot of tech upgrades. Yeah, I still think the B-52 is the superior craft, but the TU-95 is no slouch, either. Hardly as big a tech gap as ancient vs. high-tech.
I like USSR/Russian Federation and its people, but as an American I could say Russians are far ahead of US in air defence, missile technology, even military and civil aviation industry as well. How much we scream but the truth doesn't changes.
Soviet quality sucks because how many submarines has Russia lost compared to western countries? Russia lost 13 submarines and the western countries lost 4 submarines.
This video is misleading ! What about the TU160 and TU22 ?! I can't believe it's not even mentionned !!! Here, people will think Russians only have the old TU95 !
After the start of the Ukrainian War, every piece of hardware from Russia is laughable. Think about it, they even have a "Turtle Tank". Can't imagine when they upgraded their Tu-95 to a "Turtle Bear" when enough numbers were being shot down.***🙄🙄
actually was designed in the late 50s your thinking of the exact copy they made of the B-29 the TU-4 that flew after the war.. The russians were afraid of Japan in WWII so didn't declare war on them till a few days before they surrendered and wouldn't allow their allies who were fighting Japan to use any of their territory for bases etc to fight Japan . A few B-29s were forced to land in Russia and they and their crews were interned , yes they held their allies captive, they sent the aircrews home eventually but kept the planes thus the TU-4 and was the father of all their prop driven bombers
![[UA] NAVI vs MOUZ | BO5 | IEM Rio 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CMBYk0cbGoA/mqdefault.jpg)
The Tu-95 is so loud submarines can pick up the acoustic signature under water.
Если ты услышал ту95 то всё вокруг уже сгорело.
@@Ильнур-ы1еno it sucks
As a retired 20 year USAF veteran, I can assure you the "BUFF" is not known to anyone in the Air Force as the "Big Ugly Fat Fellow"... it stands for something else.
F'n A😂
Eff Yeah !!!!
Crew comfort. You're going on a 24 + hour mission you can choose a plane that is so loud submarines can hear it. it's cramped and has very little in the way of creature comforts. this results in fatigue and all that goes along with it. The B52 is getting a multitude of upgrades to make the flight more enjoyable.
If the question was which is cooler the bear is definitely the winner. It's one of my favorite planes.
There'a also the fact that the B-52 has been used in combat a heck of a lot more than the Tu-95 over the last 69 years since it first entered service. There's a body of military doctrine that has been built up over the decades for the B-52 and newer weapons systems that have expanded the types of missions wherein the B-52 can be deployed.
It’s worth taking in account the the b52 has been used in countries without an actual army and without any air defense. Also in Vietnam 31 of them got shot down.
The TU-95 dropped and detonated the biggest bomb men ever created, the tsar bumba and the crew barely made out of the blast. I just thought it was very fascinating
Yes....we watched the video
That TU-95 was 28 miles away from the tsar bomba when it exploded. The TU-95 was almost blown out of the sky
I gotta go with the bear. But I'm a sucker for turboprops especially counter rotating.
The B-52s sang "Love Shack", 1989.
И сбит СССР ПВО😂
I got me a Tupolev that seats about twenty
So come on, comrade, bring your vodka money
Tu 95 is more interesting with what it achieves with turboprops.
I would pick the B 52 for the air force.
Having a stick with a porcupine attached to it is more interesting than an AK-47... but I'd much rather have an AK-47 in a battle than a stick with a porcupine attached to it.
Production logistics and overall coast are an essential factor as well.
I guess both planes serve it' s purpose, with the obvious trade offs when it comes to performance.
Next week I would like to see the comparison between the " White Swan" TU - 160 , and the best the
USA has to offer.
Thank you very much in advance.
Thinking about attrition war, efficiency wins. Undoubtedly.
Ту-95, definitely - my father’s one! 💥
If these 2 ever have to do their "job", it would not matter to those below which is better, right!
There's two things I didn't expect to hear in one sentence; B-52 and photo recon.
Hands down, I will place my vote for the B-52. No mention was made regarding the maintenance of the planes. Certainly spare parts, ease and the amount of maintenance required would be an important aspect to consider along with crew comfort. As far as radar cross sections there’s simply no way to hide planes as large as B-52 or Russian Bear. One must note the difference in payload, 70,000lbs for the B-52 vs 33,000lbs for the Bear.❤
You will never see a Tu95 carrying 33,000 lb though. Maybe if it carried iron... In general, a full load would be about 20,000 lb.
B-52 is a beast but i also dig the contra rotating props on the bear
You would get really, really exhausted with hearing those contra-rotating props after the first 15 minutes. They're incredibly loud.
What could (or does) Tu-95 make(s) better is its unit cost, it’s like 3 or 4 Tu-95s over one B-52
That's America for ya. We wait 10 extra yrs and pay 10x the amount decided on.
how can you possible compare the cost of anything built in America to something made in russia just to get you started the average wage in russia is around 700 US dollars a month .. Add to that we have our own high tech industry Russia relies on western high tech .. You should be able to take it from there
@@timfreeman3826 just as couple examples of many many examples the US first Stealth aircraft first entered service in the 1980s, Russia still doesn't have one ! How many actual Aircraft Carriers are in the Russian navy 0 , the US has 20 --11 Super Carriers and 9 assault carriers . Having served I am glad the US spends what it does on the tools we need to fight with.. I can tell by your comment you haven't served
@@randym7961 You know... money values are different too in different countries, if Russian tanks were built in America they would obviously be higher in unit cost because the standards for the engineers and other workers are different, and same the other way around.
@@stacosaurus Very true but most don't actually think about it
It’s worth mentioning that 31 B-52s were shot down in Vietnam.
Lol yes
How many Tu-95s were in Vietnam?
So what?
Really I never knew it’s never mentioned .
@@realdreamerschangetheworld7470zero
During my cruise aboard the Nimitz aircraft carrier in 1985 every morning at exactly 8:00 am two Russian TU-95’s would do a low-level pass over the Nimitz.
B52 was upgraded with the most modern gadgets
Wow I always thought thought the Bear had a larger payload, the F-15E Strike Eagle can carry 4,500 lbs more that it can. That is a crazy difference in the fact the Buff can carry double that of what the TU-95 does.
It carries 40000 pounds not 4500
Tupolev was built as a defensive weapon, ...to carry a very light nuclear load therefore no need for jet engines. The B52 was designed as an offensive weapon to carry out American attacks around the world using heavy conventional weaponry and regular bombs. Both are still good at what they were designed for, that's why both are still in service.
А сбит СССР ПВО😂
@@marshalljulie3676hahaha he had me for a second
Umm go through the specs once more good sir
The Tu 95 has never involved in major wars like in Vietnam
When the B-52 was first produced it truly epitomized the cliche of being ahead of its time.
B52, a jet, top speed: 660 MPH. TU-95, A turboprop, top speed 575 MPH. B52, maximum altitude: 50,000 feet. TU-95, maximum altitude, 45,000 feet. Let the specs speak for themselves.
Both capable of launching ALCMs.
I thought the TU-95 had a giant canon sticking out of its nose when I first saw it.
Both are excellent platforms and will be around for a long time to come! Detectability is irrelevant, as Both can launch standoff weapons from far beyond any air defence systems!
This is false.
B-52. Although, I've always thought the Bear was cool.
TU-95 never been used en masse
Конечно нет, потому-что Россия в отличии от сша не бомбила десятки стран!😉 Но если он будет использоваться - вы об этом узнаете!🤣
The TU looks cooler.
Both ships are engineering Marvels but B-52 bomber stands out
Сбит в СССР ПВО
The canon in the back door was bad ass
One is faster and can carry almost twice as much as the other for nearly the same distance. That one is better.
In terms of heavy Bomber and Huge Range and payload B52 standouts and since its jet powered its speedy also main point
Russia should also have developed an low speed bomber like B52
Зачем России разрабатывать такой бомбардировщик в 21 веке? Наши ракеты долетают до сша за 30 минут!😉
The Tupolev is nothing but a reverse engineered B-29 which the airframe is based on. The B-52 was a revolutionary airframe for the time it was introduced. Upgrades over the decades have made it even more formidable. The range of the B-52 due to its air refueling capabilities gives it a truly global reach. The TU-95 is a good recon aircraft, and effective as a combat aircraft using standoff munitions like cruise missiles. The B-52 excels at nuclear strategic bombing, carpet bombing, as well as deploying standoff munitions. Even with upgrades, the Bear is dated. The BUFF however, is aging like "fine wine." Both still have a place in air combat for the 21st Century. A testament to the design and versatility of both airframes.
The TU-95 has swept wings, the B-29 (TU-4) did not.
When the B-29 was copied in the Soviet Union it became the TU-4
The TU-95 may have some features you may think is similar to the B-29, it was a totally new design not reversed engineered.
The TU-95 has been upgraded for air to air refueling.
@@kipschwanenberg4934it’s an evolved B29
The notion that the TU-95 can stay in the air longer is not entirely true. Because the U.S Air Force operates the largest fleet of “flying gas stations “ , the range if the B-52 is incredible. Basically only being measured in continuous hours of flight and not distance. The B-52 can stay in the air for just over 72 hours at a time. Only being limited to the fatigue of the flight crew. Russia has 20 refueling planes. The U.S. has 560. Also with the new R&R engines the B-52 non refueled combat range is 8800 miles. Comparing these two planes is like comparing the Wright flyer to an F-16.
A respectable attempt to suggest there's some parity between the B-52 and the TU-95. Although there's parity in some features, e.g., speed and range, as a heavy bomber the key factor is payload, and the B-52 has almost twice the payload of the TU-95. Mic drop.
B-52 looks more Solid but Tu-95 was designed to withstand EMP Blasts.
great big toolbox with wings the 52
The TU-95 is an interesting and typically Soviet "rough and ready" aircraft, but in terms of performance and utility there's no real comparison with the B-52.
Which one is better? Well, the double propeller on the Tu-95 cancels torque and vibration, giving it a long range (no hype there). B52 USAF pilots and crews would mutiny in Vietnam from flying missions, and the Hanoi Hilton was packed with pilots and crews, so there's no Hype there either. It's a Tie
How many Tu-95s were in Vietnam?
Both are now missile launch platforms against anyone with air defense. You can't expect them to drop gravity bombs if AA launcher stands near target.
I'll take the BUFFs every time.
The Bear looks like my cat when I scrunch her chin up to her face...
We will know when the booth go against each other
I wonder what grandpa buff would think of this video
The B-52 is clearly way better but the Bear is a beautiful airplane
Depends on the mission. In an ant--ship missile role they will both do the job. In a traditional bomber role they are both vulnerable to anti-air systems. However in this role the B-52 would operate as part of a coordinated strike package thus reducing its vulnerability. The Russian have little to no experience in these kind of strikes and have shown little talent for it in Ukraine.
Ones a really good distraction tool
When it comes to military and military only an American made is always superior in the technology and the design
Tu-95 is more original but it is much less comfortable though
1:30 video speaks on carpet bombing rather matter of factly, like it should even be remotely acceptable as a strategy in any conflict.
Tu95 is loud enough to make someone deaf.
Is a B52 more "calm" than a Tu95, really ?!
The buff for sure
The Tu- 🛞 uses tires on top
The TU-95 is one heck of a beautiful airplane.
UGLY.
B52 is the best but the 95 is no joke
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
Америку сбил СССР ПВО😂
@@ДИВАННЫЙЭКСПЕРТ4 would it be difficult for you to translate please Russians
@@ДИВАННЫЙЭКСПЕРТ4 And US missiles shot down USSR aircraft in afghanistan. What's your point
Agree
B52 is far superior. But ive always loved the look of the "bear" 🤷🏾♂️
The bear has longer range. Plus there's been various upgrades this video doesn't do it justice 😂
Не забывай В сбила СССР ракета
Those 4 huge contra-props have a menacing sound I wish to hear.
How far exactly? As your boasting?
Should be compared to the white swan
White swan vs the bone
white swan vs my average bad piggies vehicle
Considering the us doesnt need that extended range do to the fact we have air bases all around the world we dont need the range. So ill take the almost double pay load.
yes USA has settled everywhere being the agressor, russia only has 2 or 3 basses world wide wich shows who the agressor is.
@@lexburen5932remind who invaded a nation with absolutely no justification? like they're literally at war at the moment?
@@sadfrog5787what nation?Iraq?
The acronym has only one F, and if you know, you know.
B52 would have been a legendary success but its jet turbine engines are just too inefficient.
TU95BEAR uses props and is very efficient and affordable.
TU95BEAR
Prices, please??
Yes.
Не забывай В,,, сбила СССР ракета
I can’t believe the Russian one is a prop plane.
Russia…YOU MAKE ME LAUGH!
Tupolev was built as a defensive weapon, ...to carry a very light nuclear load therefore no need for jet engines. The B52 was designed as an offensive weapon to carry out American attacks around the world using heavy conventional weaponry and regular bombs. Both are still good at what they were designed for, that's why both are still in service.
Why do you guys make that excuse, everytime you guys say it had a different purpose but that is not the case here the bear was supposed to travel far to reach America and back. That's what everyone was striving for then and now a bomber that can travel long distances.
@@im-a-mexican-knockedout-snorin The B52 was designed to carry large conventional loads. Multitude of bombs to be dropped in offensive attacks. Tu-95 was designed as a defensive deterrent, ...a plane to carry a small load, a single nuclear bomb (or nowadays a nuclear tipped missile or two). The B52 took part in many bombings in various American attacks. The Tu-95 never saw action. Both machines are still fulfilling their design objectives and therefore remain in service. One as an offensive weapon the other defensive. That is the main difference between the two bombers.
@sezwo5774 you are wrong, tu 95 was built to strike America and return to Russia, it was built offensively for a first strike. That's what America and Russia was aiming for but the russians fell short
@@im-a-mexican-knockedout-snorin Tu-95 was never used. Why? Because of its deterrence. It was built to be a deterrent and defensive weapon. It was extremely succesful. Without it probably Russia would have been attacked. B52 on the other hand was built as an offensive tool and found implementation in many American bombing campaingns all over the planet. Both are fulfilling their roles until today, that is why both are still in service.
@@sezwo5774That's not how deterrence works: deterrence is based on attack, not defence. Bombers are always offensive tools, no exception.
Nice video!
Why not tu 160?
Потому-что на фоне Ту-160 Б-52 - меркнет!😉
Really, this question is relevant? Are u really asking this question?
The tu is so loud it can be tracked by submarines
Maybe true, but with today's missile's.
They don't need to be close to their targets,
you don't even hear bomber or missiles before it's good night for ever.
Which one is the best..? Both of these planes carry nuclear weapons, Am I right? They both Gil, so what difference does it make baby.... !
Can you please tell me how much the tsar bomba weight . oh I know it's 60,000 lb and the tu 95 bear is the only plane that carry it .
And you said the tu95 bear can only carry 40,000 lb
To accommodate the Tsar bomba, the Tu-95 had previously been extensively modified and lightened. The bomb bay and fuel tank doors had been removed. The flight characteristics of the aircraft, speed and range, were significantly reduced.
What a stupid question!
Feeding your your citizens is better than everything 💯
in today's day and age, they are BOTH flying coffins
You cannot compare a jet with a turbopropeller aeroplane. The only valid basis for comparison is their service life which are similar for both aircrafts.
what ever fool
Both are long range strategic bombers intended deploy, initially, unguided bombs, and then used to deploy stand off cruise missiles. Just because the Tu-95 uses inferior piston engines doesn't make incomparable with the B-52.
@@ImBigFloppa comparing it to the Tu-160 blackjack will have made a lot more sense. That's why the Soviets kept trying to outmatch the B-52. Speed, ceiling, payload, power plants... weight... Performance not intention is what defines an aircraft's role.
@@Noblepilot_abrahamvwi_aeroplan
Extremely long range subsonic strategic bomber intended to be the cheapest to operate. B-52 and Tu-95. B-52 is significantly better in every regard
Long range supersonic bomber intended to penetrate enemy air defenses and unleash a massive amount of bombs. B-1B and Tu-160.
The Tu-160 was never intended to replace the Tu-95 because the Tu-95 was significantly cheaper to operate. It was built as a response to the B-1B, which was built as a replacement for the B-52, but never really panned out as ICBMs took over as the primary nuke delivery system and bombers became conventional delivery systems.
@@ImBigFloppa can't be any truer. As a pilot, I am just talking from a professional standpoint. Military doctrines and tactics differ from country to country;One super power to the other. I agree with you even though my argument was from the point of the engines. When you see a jet versus a turboprop, you can tell right away that the jet outperforms the turborop in every respect as you can see in the video even if it's got contrarotating engines. Just more noisier. 😀
Grandpa BUFF 💪 all the way
الغريب في الأمر لم تسقط اي طاير من طراز تي يو ٩٥ في حين سقطط كثير منها البي ٥٢ لمشاكل فنيه
How do you compare an ancient with hi-tech bro?
The B-52 and the TU-95 were released into active service apart from each other , and both have had a lot of tech upgrades.
Yeah, I still think the B-52 is the superior craft, but the TU-95 is no slouch, either. Hardly as big a tech gap as ancient vs. high-tech.
In warfare its all about what works..
@@DarrenK-dt7sxthe tu95 still uses vacuum tubes😂
13 B52 was shot down one night in Vietnam by Russia missiles.
@@onyebuchiogbonna7614yeah ! It happens in war, if any weapons are heavily involved
Not even close.
B-52 all the way!!!
A Curtis Jenny beats them both!
The new Russian air-launched cruise missile X-101 has a maximum range of 5,500 km.
X= experiment,doesnt count.
Russian claims of missile range can never be trusted. They include the range of the launch platform in some unknown configuration
Мусор
That's an absurd question.
Um....There was never any need for such comparison. The mighty B52 is and will always be superior to the Tu.....
I like USSR/Russian Federation and its people, but as an American I could say Russians are far ahead of US in air defence, missile technology, even military and civil aviation industry as well. How much we scream but the truth doesn't changes.
I guess the B52
world war11 planes that fell in veitnan like leaves never compare
Soviet quality sucks because how many submarines has Russia lost compared to western countries? Russia lost 13 submarines and the western countries lost 4 submarines.
B52 is far superior. Two words…Arc Light!
B52 is a best
This video is misleading ! What about the TU160 and TU22 ?! I can't believe it's not even mentionned !!! Here, people will think Russians only have the old TU95 !
The US has B-1B's the B-2 and will soon have B-21's........
That's not what this video is about......
B-52 Baby
Really? B52 wins this one. Bear foxtrot can’t do the altitude.
with the advancement of future technologies, such bombers will be unusable
???
$$$$$$ for America 😮😮😮😮😮
Although I am a BUFF fan, you're basically looking at 6 of one, half a dozen of another, overall.
TU-95 is of Old technology than US B-52
After the start of the Ukrainian War, every piece of hardware from Russia is laughable.
Think about it, they even have a "Turtle Tank". Can't imagine when they upgraded their Tu-95 to a "Turtle Bear" when enough numbers were being shot down.***🙄🙄
Tu-95 was from ww2 still can compete what a legent
actually was designed in the late 50s your thinking of the exact copy they made of the B-29 the TU-4 that flew after the war.. The russians were afraid of Japan in WWII so didn't declare war on them till a few days before they surrendered and wouldn't allow their allies who were fighting Japan to use any of their territory for bases etc to fight Japan . A few B-29s were forced to land in Russia and they and their crews were interned , yes they held their allies captive, they sent the aircrews home eventually but kept the planes thus the TU-4 and was the father of all their prop driven bombers