Flightline: 54/TBD

"user314" (user314) 09/25/2020 at 11:00 • Filed to: flightline, Planelopnik, planelopnik history, cold war, Russia, USSR, bear, tu-95

6

20

“Pigpen this here’s the Rubber Duck, we about to go a’huntin’ Bears!”

First taking flight in 1952, the Tu-95 “Bear” bomber is one of the loudest, fastest propeller-driven warplanes in service.

In 1948 the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! began work on a strategic bomber based on the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! “Bull”, which was an unlicensed copy of the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . The Bull, though state of the art during WWII, was unable to reach the US from the USSR, and a new plane was needed for the nascent Cold War. Starting with the Tu-4's fuselage, a new wing was designed by !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! was fitted, along with turbo-compound !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! engines. The resulting aircraft, designated the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! had a range of twelve thousand kilometres and a speed of 638 km/h. Production was planned beginning in 1951, but experiences in the Korean conflict convinced the USSR that there was no future in piston powered bombers, and the project was canceled with only two planes completed.

The prototype Tu-85

Tupolev went back to the drawing board, eventually developing a new design incorporating a swept wing and turboprop engines. The resulting !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! retained the 12,000km range of the Barge, but the top speed was now 830km/h. The new plane first flew in November 1952, though it crashed after six months after a gearbox failure. The second prototype incorporated updated engines, and after a successful test series, production was ordered in January of 1956.

Orthographic line drawing of the Tu-95MSV

Numerous !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! have been made to the Tu-95 design over the years, including the Tu-95K/KD (“Bear-B”), designed to carry !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! cruise missiles, Tu-95MR (“Bear-E”) photo reconnaissance planes, and the newest mod, the Tu-95MSM. Several aircraft were also derived from the Tu-95, including the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! airliner, the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! AEW&C platform, and the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! maritime recon and ASW aircraft.

One of the the constants of the last sixty years has been US, NATO and other Western aircraft intercepting and escorting Tu-95s:

A US Navy F-8E Crusader escorting a Bear sometime in the middle/late 1960s.

A CF-101 escorts a Bear

F-102A intercepts a Tu-95 Bear-B near Iceland

NJ ANG F-106 escorting a Tu-95

“Because I was inverted...”

British Aerospace Sea Harrier British Aerospace Sea Harrier in formation with Tupolev Tu-95 and Grumman F-14

A Soviet Tupolev Tu-95 “Bear H” aircraft escorted by a U.S. Air Force McDonnell Douglas F-15A

A RNAF F-16 escorting a Tu-95 in 2007

F-22A Raptor escorting a Tu-95

A Soviet Tu-142M aircraft (NATO code “Bear F Mod 3") being escorted by a U.S. Navy Lockheed P-3C

Tu-95 Bear being escorted by a BAe Lightning

Tu-95 Bear bomber being escorted by a Panavia Tornado.

RAF Typhoon intercepting a Tu-95

A Rafale-N of the French Navy escorting a Tu-142

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Turbineguy: Nom de Zoom > user314 09/25/2020 at 11:20

2

Great photos. I chuckled seeing the A-6 and P-3 escorts. No guns or missiles; makes me wonder if ordered to attack they’d fly over the Bear and drop a bomb or torpedo? I am kinda curious to know how many Bears have been lost from gearbox failures with their contra-rotati ng props.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > user314 09/25/2020 at 11:20

8

|including the Tu-114 airliner

YOU SEE IVAN, IF PASSENGER IS DEAF WHEN VISITING CORRUPT WESTERN COUNTRY, HE DOES NOT HEAR WESTERN LIES

ttyymmnn > user314 09/25/2020 at 11:23

4

The history of Western military aircraft told through interceptions of the Tu-95.

user314 > ttyymmnn 09/25/2020 at 11:27

1

I was looking for a composite photo of an 6th Gen fighter  intercepting a Bear, but surprisingly I couldn’t find one.

user314 > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 09/25/2020 at 11:28

0

“Creature comforts” obviously has no direct translation in Russian. 

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > user314 09/25/2020 at 11:32

1

I’ve read some Pushkin and the very-well-researched picture of old Russia in Flashman At The Charge, and I’d have to say I suspect you’re right. How much of the Russian spirit is bleakness, and how much an inability to “get” comfort? Even in luxury, it seems really suffery somehow.

Turbineguy: Nom de Zoom > user314 09/25/2020 at 11:34

1

In this case creature comforts =  earplugs.

Future next gen S2000 owner > user314 09/25/2020 at 11:39

0

Are we placing bets on the Bear or B-52 being replaced first?

Future next gen S2000 owner > user314 09/25/2020 at 11:40

0

Isn’t the F-22 a 6th gen?

ttyymmnn > Future next gen S2000 owner 09/25/2020 at 11:46

3

F-22 is fifth generation. There is no official sixth generation fighter yet. At least none that we know of. I suppose the new  fighter the AF is bragging about might be.

user314 > Future next gen S2000 owner 09/25/2020 at 11:51

1

It depends on who you ask , but the consensus is that the F-22 and F-35 are 5th Gen:

The USN’s   F/A-XX and USAF’s F-X / Penetrating Counter Air/ Next Generation Air Dominance will be 6th Gen.

ttyymmnn > Future next gen S2000 owner 09/25/2020 at 11:55

0

Give this a read. It’s possible that there won’t be a sixth generation “fighter” in the sense we know it now.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/36509/the-air-forces-secret-next-gen-air-dominance-demonstrator-isnt-what-you-think-it-is

user314 > Future next gen S2000 owner 09/25/2020 at 11:56

1

Depends on what you mean by “replaced”. If you’re talking an official announcement and the planes being retired to a boneyard, then the B-52 will go first. If you mean “W e’ve run out of money and can’t fly them anymore. Also, the mechanics have stripped all the valuable parts.”, then it’ll be the Bear .

AlfaCorse > user314 09/25/2020 at 13:08

0

I believe all the Bears flying today were built in the 80's making the airframes quite a bit newer than the B-52s. Although t he USAF plans to fly the B-52 possibly into the 2050s, I don’t know if Russia plans to operate the Tu-95 that long.

AlfaCorse > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 09/25/2020 at 13:21

0

I think in it’s day it was actually considered a pretty luxurious plane, even by western standards, apart from noise.  Some seating configurations had 4 state-rooms with 3 sleeping berths each.  Later on I think they were all converted to more standard layouts though once the Il-62 started to take over the more prestigious routes.

user314 > AlfaCorse 09/25/2020 at 13:37

1

Correct. Russia officially plans to retire the Tu-95 some time in the 2040's, though as most things in Russia, that’s highly contingent on how long the oil money keeps flowing. 

McMike > user314 09/25/2020 at 13:43

0

I love this relationship between fighter escorts and the Bear. The F-102 is the oldest air frame to intercept one of these, and the F22? Is the latest?

(unless you count the Tu-142 anti-submarine as a Bear, then the F35 is the latest)

user314 > McMike 09/25/2020 at 13:59

0

For my money, t he Tu-142 counts (the NATO reporting name is “Bear-F”, after all). I know a RNoAF F-35A intercepted a pair of Tu-142s back in March, but the only pics I’ve seen are from the Russian side.

JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t > Turbineguy: Nom de Zoom 09/25/2020 at 18:41

0

I thought the A-6 could be fitted with a cannon ? A t the least it could have rocket pods... I think the P-3 can carr y rocket pods as well, or at least I thought it could?  though I bet de pth charge or torpedo dropped on top of a Bear would still end badly. Then again, the Bear can handily outrun a P-3 if it comes to that, the A-6, not so much.

Turbineguy: Nom de Zoom > JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t 09/25/2020 at 22:04

0

The A-6 did have a belly mount cannon available, but it was not reliable  so it rarely was used. Like the early F-4s it had no guns, just wing hardpoints. I don’t know about rockets; the Intruder loadout was typically dumb bombs. The P-3 loadout includes torpedoes for the ASW mission, air-to-ground and antiship missiles, depth charges, bombs and mines. No rockets that I can find.