Russia announced that they flew two TU-95MS bombers near U.S. military exercises in the Pacific as well as over Guam. The U.S. denies those claims, saying the two Russian bombers never got within 500 miles of Guam.
So,what is a TU-95? That is an interesting question. The TU-95 is basically a contemporary of the B-52 bomber, although it's maybe 3/4ths the size of a B-52. Like with the B-52, the Russians have spent the past 50 years trying to replace it with a newer better bomber, and not succeeding. Some aircraft simply hit the "sweet spot" where there is no possible way to replace them with anything better. You can revise and refine them a bit -- but for some aircraft, they are so ideally suited for their mission that it's just impossible to do anything better. The Soviets realized this and built more TU-95's during the 1980's and 1990's -- every TU-95 currently flying was built during the 1980's and 1990's and has updated avionics and engines compared to the originals . If only Reagan had realized this during the 1980's and built more B-52's rather than the awful B1 bomber (which is a hangar queen par excellence that takes far more maintenance and upkeep to keep flying than the reliable old bomb truck B-52, and won't fly as far unless you replace one of its bomb bays with a fuel tank at which point it has only 2/3rds the bomb capacity of a B-52).
The TU-95 has three major distinctions. First, it is the only turboprop-powered strategic bomber ever produced, and while its performance is similar to the B-52 it probably has a longer unrefueled range because of that (if the B-52 was ever upengined with modern turbofan jets engines that would probably cease to be true). Secondly, it is probably the loudest aircraft ever built. Finally, it has never dropped a bomb in anger.
Compare that last to the B-52. The B-52 has dropped bombs on: Vietnam. Cambodia. Laos. Kuwait. Iraq. Afghanistan. The B-52 has dropped thousands of tons of bombs on all those places. The B-52 is still dropping bombs on Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet the TU-95, the Soviet equivalent, has never dropped a single bomb in anger.
Who was the evil empire, again?
-- Badtux the Snarky Penguin
We are! We are! Did I get it right? Like the new look and your thumbnail pic...it's all sleek just like your penguin body...or your jeep...it looks good too.
ReplyDeleteAh, yes, the Bear.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the reason the Tu-95 is still flying is the same reason the US still flies B-52s: They carry a lot of dumb bombs, and are good at saturating an area. Specifically, an area that you already maintain absolute air superiority in.
The problem, though, is that the B-52, and, by analogy, the Tu-95, are BUFFs (Big, Ugly, Fat F...). They are of relatively modest speed. While they do fly high, that is no detriment to being shot down. Note that the B-52 was designed back in the era when altitude was considered safety. However, the Soviets quickly burst that fallacy. It doesn't matter how many tons of bombs that a bomber can carry, nor how high it can fly, nor how far it can carry those bombs, if it can be shot down before it gets to the target. Thus, the rationale for the B-1 was that it could fly low and fast enough to not be shot down. So, even though the B-1 can't carry the same amount of ordinance that a B-52 or Tu-95 can, the fact that a B-1 can fly low and fast enough to avoid radar, fighters, and missiles means that it can deposit that ordinance on the target, while the B-52s and Tu-95s would be fluttery pieces of metal floating down from the upper atmosphere.
Now, note that I'm not saying that the B-1 is the ultimate bomber. As has been proven, it's not. It spends way too much time in the hanger. It costs way too much to maintain. And, it's still overly vunerable to attack (although requiring the enemy to develop new
offensive weapons to cope with it). And, it's populated by a non-expendable, highly trained flight crew. One of the ways that the B-1 has demonstrated its problems is the fact that it has been largely replaced by cruise missiles.
Oh, and as far as dropping weapons in anger, note that the Tsar Bomba was dropped by a Tu-95 (even if it wasn't being directly used for offensive purposes; more for propaganda purposes).
Dave
Actually, the Tu-95, as with the B-52 in a hostile environment, is a cruise missile carrier. None of the ones currently in the Russian inventory other than the Navy ones is equipped to drop bombs, though the Russians are re-equipping them to drop bombs. Both the Tu-95 and B-52 are about as fast and agile as a B1 when coming in "on the deck", the B1's speed advantage comes at altitude where, as you point out, it doesn't matter anymore if you're going up against someone with a functioning air defense system. But nobody starts an invasion nowdays without insuring air superiority by destroying the enemy's air defense system, so it doesn't really matter that much.
ReplyDeleteThe B-2 has a reason to exist -- it can drop bombs on strategic targets despite the presence of an air defense system. The B-1... not so much. Other than that the B-52 tooling had been destroyed decades ago, the B-1 tooling was still sitting there on the lot, and Unca Ronnie wanted his 100 more strategic bombers *now*, not in the 1990's when the B2 could actually be delivered.
BTW, it's interesting that the only reason the B52 is going to eventually be retired is because the wings are literally going to wear out from abrading against atmospheric dust for close to a century of flight... and that the Air Force is currently planning to retire the B1 well before the B52 retires.
- Badtux the Warplane Penguin