B-52 vs Tu-95

These 2 bombers were the main bomber for the americans and russians during the cold war.

So I'd like to start a discussion on which is the better in your opinion and why.

 

Ok, well...


B-52:

Primary Function: Heavy bomber
Contractor: Boeing Military Airplane Co.
Power Plant: Eight Pratt & Whitney engines TF33-P-3/103 turbofan
Thrust: Each engine up to 17,000 pounds (7,650 kilograms)
Length: 159 feet, 4 inches (48.5 meters)
Height: 40 feet, 8 inches (12.4 meters)
Wingspan: 185 feet (56.4 meters)
Speed: 650 miles per hour (Mach 0.86)
Ceiling: 50,000 feet (15,151.5 meters)
Weight: Approximately 185,000 pounds empty (83,250 kilograms)
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 488,000 pounds (219,600 kilograms)
Range: Unrefueled 8,800 miles (7,652 nautical miles)
Armament: Approximately 70,000 pounds (31,500 kilograms) mixed ordnance -- bombs, mines and missiles.

Tu-95

Primary Function: Originally Heavy bomber, then recon & anti-shipping
Design Bureau: OKB-156 Tupolev.
Power Plant: Four NK-12 Turboprops (various marks)
Engine power: 12,500 - 15,000 (ESHP) (depends on the model of engine)
Length: 47 - 49.6 meters (depending on model)
Height: 12.12 - 13.4 meters (depending on model)
Wingspan: 50.05 - 51.1 meters (depending on model)
Speed: max: 575 miles per hour
Ceiling: 39,370 feet (12,000 meters)
Weight: Approximately 70,455 - 72500 kilograms empty (depending on model)
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 182,000 - 185,000 kilograms)
Range: Unrefueled 8,202 miles (with normal load)
Armament: Approximately 26,455 pounds (12,000 kilograms) mixed ordnance -- bombs, mines and missiles.

All stats from http://www.globalsecurity.org

Which makes the Bear lower, slower and with a smaller load, in a package of roughly the same size.

 

We could add in questions about which is more cost-effective, which can operate in harsher conditions, which is more reliable / maintenance-friendly...

 

Seeing how it's russian , its very probable that the Tu-95 was cheaper and easier to build. It was also more fuel efficent because of its unique propeller system.

 

FNG

 

Plus the Bear series probably cost the US more than it cost the Russians.
Very nice photo FNG, I'll be looking at that site (even though the Bear's not as nice as Backfire - the first time I heard one of those take off I decided I wanted one, but there's nowhere to put it in my flat :cry: )

 

they use turbo props, no so much different to the b 52 engines, the bear propellers are so big that the tips of the blades almost reach supersonic speed, in others words is the noisiest plane

 

the b52 also know as BUFF

 

While turbo-props tned to be more fuel efficient than straight jets, they are also usually more complicated, especially if combined with dual (contr-rotating?) props. Transmissions and all those nasty mechanical systems.

Oli, why the comment that the Bear series proably cost he US more than it did the USSR? Cost of air defense? USSR put way more effort into air defense than the US did.
"Duck and cover" doesn't cost much

 

Duck and cover doesn't cost much, but, essentially the whole Northern-facing radar chain was built to counter posssible Bears coming over the North Pole. There was a series (of three lengthy articles) in Air International many years ago entitled "Billion Dollar Bomber", which went into great depth about what countermeasures against the Bear's range had to be taken by the US. Don't forget, Bear was very long range compared to earlier Soviet/ Russian aircraft and caused great concern when put into service.
All because 3 B-29s diverted towards the end of WWII...

 

The DEW line wasn't cheap for sure. Pity about the B-29's.