Tu-95 vs B-52

it's now more than that. It can carry naval mines, ALC/AshMs & tactical nukes. Boeing would charge a lot of $ for dozens of B-747s, while B-52 airframes still have up to 2 decades, if not more, of life remaining.

Of course... a 747 could be modified to carry bombs but there is no way it could carry naval mines or nuclear bombs or cruise missiles... or could it?

M60 tanks probably have a few years worth of running left in them but should they be kept too?

that still doesn't make it a jet engine.

It uses a jet engine to power the propellers... just like a Jet ranger helicopter and most modern military helicopters use gas turbine (jet) engines to power their rotors.

I only "invented" a term to describe an engine with turbines but w/o a prop.

You do realise that a turbofan engine has large fan blades at the front that are covered by the engine, but are basically propeller blades powered by a turbojet engine... as used on most modern jet powered civilian airliners today...

U generalize many things that, metaphorically speaking, =s a floor with a ceiling. I guess being well below the Equator it's easier to overlook the difference.

Of course it is just me... the Bear clearly uses a piston engine... no... it is a radial piston engine then... no... it uses a jet engine to power the propeller blades that provide thrust... a super tucano primary trainer with a turboprop engine is the same thing or is it?

How much thrust do you get from the exhaust pipe of your car... does that make it a jet engine?

the later & less numerous M-4 Bison had 4 jets, but still with lower range than the Tu-95.

Not later... the Bison was the direct competition with the Bear and shows pretty clearly why they went for turboprop engines in the first place.

In a turbojet there is no fan and all the air entering in the air inlet goes also to the core of the engine. Therefore all the thrust come from the hot flow from the nozzle.

The only jet engines with no fan are ramjet and scramjet engines... turbojet engines use fan blades... either axial flow or centrifugal flow to suck air through the engine structure.

A turbofan has a large fan attached to the front to draw cold air that bypasses the hot section of the turbojet... you could call it a ducted fan, but unducted fan or turboprops are clearly related as also being driven by the turbojet that provides the rotational speed for propulsion.

On a turboprop the thrust generated by the turbojet is usually negligible or ineffective... its purpose in a turboprop arrangement is not to provide direct thrust... its purpose is to drive the propellers that do provide primary thrust.

By the way, now there is a campaign to substitute the current B52 engines with 8 business jet engines (high bypass turbofan), and the 3 main western engine manufacturers are competing for it.

Hahahahaha... what a joke.

Where are all the F-16 fans who think the biggest problem with the MiG-29 is the fact that it has two engines because one engine is cheaper and better than 2... why are they always scarce when talking about the worlds only operational 8 engined jet aircraft... I mean I realise the purpose of US weapons is to waste money... but do they have to be so obvious about it?

he B-52 has in recent years racked up mission capability rates of 60 percent, far above that of the B-1 and B-2, which are at about 40 and 35 percent, respectively.

Well you would think by now the bugs are sorted out, but what sort of availability rates do 747s achieve?

The B-52 costs about $70,000 per flying hour, roughly half that of the B-2—even before it gets more efficient engines.

Again, so what... you are comparing it to a very very expensive white elephant...

The B-52 “has good bones,” Rand said, noting that the B-52H spent most of its service life on ground alert for nuclear operations, and still has many thousands of hours of airframe life

They were built in the 1950s and 1960s and are bloody ancient... it says a lot of American ingenuity and technology that they can't make something newer and cheaper and better.

The reality is that none of the current US bombers is useful against Russia and soon they wont be any use against China in a first strike role... so expensive and cheap are useless, yet in a second strike after ICBMs and SLBMs have landed any will do... aren't you so glad the US military is so smart that they keep these dinosaurs when they could be using modern materials and modern systems in a much more efficient modern design that could just do the job in a cost effective way...

Just a hint at the stupidity and corruption in the US.

Which shows that they r still valuable platforms worth keeping, like the Tu-95/142s that r also being re engined.

Yeah... not really the same thing there actually... the current fleet of Bears had a design upgrade in the 1970s when the wing was completely redesigned and improved and the in service Tu-95 Bears were made in the 1980s and the 1990s so they are actually younger than many of the B-1B and B-2 aircraft the US has... but of course much cheaper to operate.

GarryB wrote:Of course... a 747 could be modified to carry bombs but there is no way it could carry naval mines or nuclear bombs or cruise missiles... or could it?

why replace all B-52s with expensive widebodies for low-altitude attack, as many American B-52s were?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myasishchev_M-4#Operational_history

Not later... the Bison was the direct competition with the Bear and shows pretty clearly why they went for turboprop engines in the first place.

it had 4 × Mikulin AM-3A turbojets, with Range: 5,600 km (3,500 mi, 3,000 nmi) vs. Tu-95MS Range: 15,000 km (9,300 mi, 8,100 nmi)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myasishchev_M-4#Specifications_(M-4)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95#Specifications_(Tu-95MS)

They were built in the 1950s and 1960s and are bloody ancient... it says a lot of American ingenuity and technology that they can't make something newer and cheaper and better.

perhaps it's the good quality & potential for modernization of the original design. The B-29/24s were modified & used for decades since 1945; the DC-3/C-47s r still flying all over the world.

The reality is that none of the current US bombers is useful against Russia and soon they wont be any use against China in a first strike role... they keep these dinosaurs when they could be using modern materials and modern systems in a much more efficient modern design that could just do the job in a cost effective way...

they have different missions now; it was cheaper to buy & operate a $ printing press, control the oil prices & profit from arms sales to the ME than scrapping B-52s that got shot down over Vietnam anyway while others set for years on alert or in storage.

..Tu-95 Bears.. but of course much cheaper to operate.

the USSR & RF economies can't be compared with the US economy. Bs of $ wasted (as with F-35s & CG/CVNs) can be passed down to future generations, or so the thinking goes.

why replace all B-52s with expensive widebodies for low-altitude attack, as many American B-52s were?

The B-52s have been regularly used in conventional conflict but never in a low altitude attack role for which they would be useless as low level air defences would devastated their force numbers rapidly and it would not reduce the range at which they would be detected in a WWIII scenario, though it would dramatically reduce their flight radius to effectively make them useless.

it had 4 × Mikulin AM-3A turbojets, with Range: 5,600 km (3,500 mi, 3,000 nmi) vs. Tu-95MS Range: 15,000 km (9,300 mi, 8,100 nmi)

That is right... turbojets from the 1960s compared with turbo props from the 1960s it was pretty clear which was more efficient for long range subsonic flight.

Unless you carried twice as much fuel or no payload it made sense to go with the turboprop design... which they did.

They did keep the Bisons for transports for large external payloads for the space industry, and also as refuelling tankers, but not as strategic bombers because their turbojet engines lacked the fuel efficiency needed for the job...

perhaps it's the good quality & potential for modernization of the original design.

Then why isn't the Boeing 747 and newer 777 based on the design if it is so wonderful.

If they are not then perhaps because they are better designs?

BTW the world record holder for a long time for long distance flights was the ANT-25 which is an early Tupolev design and has a single engine and flew distances of between 12,000 and 15,000km before WWII.

The B-29/24s were modified & used for decades since 1945; the DC-3/C-47s r still flying all over the world.

The An-2 is still widely used because of its low speed performance and ability to land on rough air strips with decent payloads...

The B-52 on the other hand is only used because it is available and they don't know how to do cost effective so any replacement wont be cheaper because they don't do cheaper.

the USSR & RF economies can't be compared with the US economy. Bs of $ wasted (as with F-35s & CG/CVNs) can be passed down to future generations, or so the thinking goes.

They might rethink their ideas when the next generation realise they have nothing and no one will take their money... so they resort to using old folks homes to supply KFC with "chicken"... a double saving.... fresh meat... though a little chewy... and saving on retirement funds when everyone over 35 is eaten... who would have thought "Logans Run" was a documentary...

The B-52s have been regularly used in conventional conflict but never in a low altitude attack role for which they would be useless as low level air defences would devastated their force numbers rapidly..

they were going to get low once almost over the Soviet tundra & taiga were the AD was weak before climbing again & releasing bombs over populated aras & air bases. In Iraq & Afghanistan, they bombed from lower altitudes for more accuracy after the AD was destroyed or was non-existent.

Then why isn't the Boeing 747 and newer 777 based on the design if it is so wonderful.

there r several AF B-747 versions already: command posts, AF1s, failed ABL, & tankers. It would make more sense to use a few C-5/17s as CM trucks. OTH, USN SSGNs can carry 154 SLCMs & get even closer to all of their potential targets while undetected/better protected by the ocean, SSNs, surface fleet & AF/naval aviation.
Russia could also modify some IL-76s &/ An-22/124s for ALCMs, not to mention their own commercial B-747s, but the VMF SSGNs can do it better for the same reasons.

Good news for the first tu160 of new production.

As far as the B52, several years ago there were talks about upgrading them with 4 engines, using the same engines on the narrowbody passenger jets like the airbus A320, but then they realised that this was not feasible on the existing wings and pylons. Replacing each TF33 with business Jet engines, that are already normally side mounted and are of more compatible size would instead be much easier for existing aircrafts. The issue is that with the current foreseen utilisation the b52 airframes have still another couple decades on them left, while the engines would need replacements soon. Probably spare parts will not be available forever, so a remotorisation can solve the problem and increase also the range and endurance of the existing bombers. Overall the Tu-95 has been probably a more easily modernised program in comparison

They also re engined tankers to give them more range & loitering time; so even if the B-52s will lack both on some missions, it won't be a problem. Of the original KC-135As, more than 417 were modified with new CFM-56 engines produced by CFM-International. The re-engined tanker, designated either the KC-135R or KC-135T, can offload 50% more fuel, is 25% more fuel efficient, costs 25% less to operate and is 96% quieter than the KC-135A. ..
Inventory: Active duty, 153; Air National Guard, 171; Air Force Reserve, 72. https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/1529736/kc-135-stratotanker/

Even with their enormous range, the Tu-95/142s also practice mid-air refueling.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-baltic/dutch-fighters-intercept-russian-plane-over-baltic-sea-idUSKCN0IX1Y520141113

https://i.imgur.com/75NmnFI.jpg

they were going to get low once almost over the Soviet tundra & taiga were the AD was weak before climbing again & releasing bombs over populated aras & air bases.

Yeah, I know... that is what they were planning to do but after a fairly short period of practising low level flight in arctic conditions issues with fuel burn and flight range were a little upsetting, but it was the wing cracking that stopped the practise pretty damn immediately.

In Iraq & Afghanistan, they bombed from lower altitudes for more accuracy after the AD was destroyed or was non-existent.

Lower... but never low. And accuracy had nothing to do with it... carpet bombing does not require accuracy.

there r several AF B-747 versions already: command posts, AF1s, failed ABL, & tankers. It would make more sense to use a few C-5/17s as CM trucks. OTH, USN SSGNs can carry 154 SLCMs & get even closer to all of their potential targets while undetected/better protected by the ocean, SSNs, surface fleet & AF/naval aviation.
Russia could also modify some IL-76s &/ An-22/124s for ALCMs, not to mention their own commercial B-747s, but the VMF SSGNs can do it better for the same reasons.

Modified long range large airliners are the ideal solution in terms of flight range, speed and payload... and operational costs cycles... heavy transports don't even come close.

Modified long range large airliners are the ideal solution in terms of flight range, speed and payload...

a few extra B-1B/52s or Tu-95/142/160s &/ SSGNs+surface ships would deliver as many, if not more, CMs as 1 B-747/777 or IL-96. Besides, the USAF has many F-15s, P-3/8s, & perhaps modified C-130s forward deployed at any given time that can deliver CMs just as good. Russia also has many Su-30/34s, IL-38s & An-12/72s as potential CMs carriers.
The bigger the strike package, the bigger the chance for success.

a few extra B-1B/52s or Tu-95/142/160s &/ SSGNs+surface ships would deliver as many, if not more, CMs as 1 B-747/777 or IL-96.

You are not selling this well... the B-52 can carry a maximum of 20 cruise missiles... 8 internally and 12 on external pylons... the B-1B can carry 8 cruise missiles in each of its three weapon bays, so it carrys 24 missiles.... so even two B-1Bs or three B-52s wouldn't carry as many CMs as a modified 747...

The Boeing 747 CMCA was supposed to be fitted with internal rotary launchers for cruise missiles and was expected to carry up to 100 missiles.

a few extra B-1B/52s or Tu-95/142/160s &/ SSGNs+surface ships would deliver as many, if not more, CMs as 1 B-747/777 or IL-96. Besides, the USAF has many F-15s, P-3/8s, & perhaps modified C-130s forward deployed at any given time that can deliver CMs just as good.

You are missing the point... those B-52s are ancient and not actually that cheap to operate for what is supposed to be a cheap simple bomb truck it is rather more expensive and more complicated than it needs to be.

The bigger the strike package, the bigger the chance for success.

Poor logic for peace time ops...the bigger the strike package the more multi million dollar aircraft platforms you need to buy to make it happen... some sort of reusable HALE platform that can be launched in times of stress and called back to reduce tensions when useful that does not need constant training and practise... it just gets airborne and flys out to a coordinate and either orbits for a few hours or days and then comes back, or launches an attack on the target.

If you need a bomb truck then most transport aircraft could do the job better, but for strategic cruise missile carrier you want something that was not made in the 1960s... I don't even use a toaster from the 1960s... in fact I think the only things I own that are that age or older are rifles...

GarryB wrote:

a few extra B-1B/52s or Tu-95/142/160s &/ SSGNs+surface ships would deliver as many, if not more, CMs as 1 B-747/777 or IL-96.

You are not selling this well... the B-52 can carry a maximum of 20 cruise missiles... 8 internally and 12 on external pylons... the B-1B can carry 8 cruise missiles in each of its three weapon bays, so it carrys 24 missiles.... so even two B-1Bs or three B-52s wouldn't carry as many CMs as a modified 747...

The Boeing 747 CMCA was supposed to be fitted with internal rotary launchers for cruise missiles and was expected to carry up to 100 missiles.

a few extra B-1B/52s or Tu-95/142/160s &/ SSGNs+surface ships would deliver as many, if not more, CMs as 1 B-747/777 or IL-96. Besides, the USAF has many F-15s, P-3/8s, & perhaps modified C-130s forward deployed at any given time that can deliver CMs just as good.

You are missing the point... those B-52s are ancient and not actually that cheap to operate for what is supposed to be a cheap simple bomb truck it is rather more expensive and more complicated than it needs to be.

The bigger the strike package, the bigger the chance for success.

Poor logic for peace time ops...the bigger the strike package the more multi million dollar aircraft platforms you need to buy to make it happen... some sort of reusable HALE platform that can be launched in times of stress and called back to reduce tensions when useful that does not need constant training and practise... it just gets airborne and flys out to a coordinate and either orbits for a few hours or days and then comes back, or launches an attack on the target.

If you need a bomb truck then most transport aircraft could do the job better, but for strategic cruise missile carrier you want something that was not made in the 1960s... I don't even use a toaster from the 1960s... in fact I think the only things I own that are that age or older are rifles...

a strategic bomber like the b52 or tu 95 will have also some so called nuclear hardening, so that in case of high EMP nearby their internal systems are not fried and they can continue to operate. As civilian plane will not have these characteristics.

The Boeing 747 CMCA was supposed to be fitted with internal rotary launchers for cruise missiles and was expected to carry up to 100 missiles.

Even the USN SSGNs didn't use all of their 154 CMs against Libya. I doubt there would be a need to use 100 CMs all at once. Such a plane will have only 1 function, spending most of the time on the ground like those B-52s, while modified cargo planes can be repurposed again & multimission SSGNs can be used semi-strategically, deliver SF teams, drones, & as SSNs, if need be.
Even before the advent of the arsenal-plane concept, the Air Force planned for the B-52, during high-end warfare, to perform a supporting role firing long-range munitions. The arsenal-plane idea merely extends the B-52’s existing operating concept and could require minimal modifications to the bomber’s sensors, communications, hardpoints and bomb bay. ..But a cargo plane such as a C-17 could require extensive modification before it could launch weapons. And as vulnerable as a lumbering B-52 is, a C-17 with its relative dearth of electronic countermeasures is even more vulnerable.
“C-17s will likely be in very high demand during the opening stages of a major conflict accomplishing their primary missions,” Mark Gunzinger, an analyst with the Virginia-based Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, told Cohen. “It wouldn’t make sense to allocate them for strikes instead of using them to deploy forces into a theatre of operations.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/arsenal-planes-imagine-c-17-cargo-plane-firing-hundreds-missiles-94446

GarryB wrote:The Boeing 747 CMCA was supposed to be fitted with internal rotary launchers for cruise missiles and was expected to carry up to 100 missiles.

I wonder how many cruise missiles a converted Dreamliner could carry. I wonder how many cruise missiles that A380 France just retired could hold.

Well from a Russian perspective against a NATO force the Tu-22M3M makes sense... with Kh-32s or Kinzhals or Zircons it is a potent attack aircraft that wasn't made in the 1960s.

But for bombing targets in Syria its payload was restricted and options to stop off in Iran were looked at... landing in Syria would make it too vulnerable and be too much of a juicy target for western special forces and there terrorist allies.

But imagine an An-124 with a payload of 120 tons and a 5,000km flight range... you could design a sort of rack mechanism like those belt automatic walk things at airports... you could put hundreds or thousands of bombs on those and just open the rear and turn the belt on... for better target coverage instead of 12 500kg bombs like the Backfire carried, you could have much larger numbers of smaller bombs to offer better coverage.

The bomb aiming system the Backfire used could easily be incorporated in the An-124s flight control system, and they could arrange the bombs on the belts to release them in patterns to increase lethality against different targets.

Even if the belt driven system was incredibly heavy you could still carry 50-60 tons of bombs of various types.

Personally, for safety I would have wires along the roof of the aircraft with wires hanging down with metal covers over the bomb fuses to protect them from impact while inside the aircraft... so you could attach the fuses on the bombs in flight in the way to the target and as you fit the fuse you place the metal cup over top and hook that to the wire by a cable like parachutists hook on when they jump to pull that first little stabilising chute they use.

When the rear is opened and the bombs start falling out the wires will rip off the covers and the bombs will be ready to explode on impact. Bombs on the rack can be spaced apart to avoid contact and there could be ribs and notches on surface the bombs are on to stop them rolling around or moving out of position... little depressions to hold them in place.