TU-95 vs B-52

File: pilot.jpg (48KB, 564x425px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 564x425px

>>33105985
B-52 because I'd prefer to not go deaf while flying

File: B-52___Tu-95.jpg (101KB, 550x368px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 550x368px

>>33105985
Really fires the neurons

Amazing to think that both aircraft will serve for nearly 100 years.

>>33106060
This is also an accurate representation of carry weight.
2 tu-95's to carry almost the same bomb load as a single b-52. Still comes up four thousand pounds short though.

>>33106099
B52 will never reach 2052, the newest airframe is about 20-25 years older than the newest Tu airframe. Unless the fleet is grounded untill the 2050's the airframes simply can't cope.

>>33106200
31 years actully.

The 'newest' B52 was built in 1962, whereas the youngest Tu-95 was made in 1992.

does it matter?

aren't both used as Cruise Missile Launch plattform?

>>33106396
I dont think B52 has been used for that in the last 14 years?

>>33106200
You have no idea how overengineered those things are. Besides, we'll surely find a way to cook structures anew by then.

>>33106479
really?
why not?

>>33106490
It doesn't matter how over engineered they are, the metal they are built from still develops faults at the same rate as the metal in any other airframe.

>>33106504
Lack of demand. Stand-off strike is still their purpose though.

>>33106200

chronological age means little, when the aircraft are maintained, which the b52s are. nasa operates of of the oldest tail numbers with the least amount of hours on it. it is considered to have the longest service life remaining despite being chronologically older than most, if not all of the fleet.

>>33105985
B-52

I like having an actual payload and range.

>>33106522
feels bad man

File: 12.jpg (71KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1024x680px

To comply with the SALT II Treaty requirements, cruise missile-capable aircraft had to be identifiable by spy satellites. To comply, the B-52 "G" models were modified with a curved wing root fairing.

>>33105985
B52.
>further range
>better defended
>bigger payload
>shorter runways
>faster
>more variety of weapons

>>33106396
>Russian airplane
>cruise missile platform
1. They have fewer than 100 cruise missiles total
2. Half of them are ancient as shit and probably don't work
3. They only have one family of cruise missile period, the HK-55
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-55

>>33106479
They withdrew the AGM-129 from active service in 2012, which was carried exclusively by the B52H. The last cruise missile fired in anger from a B52 was fired in 2012 as well, into Afghanistan.

The B52 is still flying "freedom of navigation" patrols in the South China Sea, and they are in theory armed with TLAM's, they just haven't had reason to actually shoot anybody yet.

>>33106504
They're really fucking expensive to fly compared to smaller planes that can carry "enough" munitions for the few strike roles the USAF has performed in the last 30 years.

>>33106479
It last fired ALCMs in 2003 against Iraq, the Tu-95 hasn't done any firings.

File: 58a769a4c361883a698b45cf.jpg (29KB, 900x500px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 900x500px

>>33106588
russkis seem to use it for Cruise Missiles

https://www.rt.com/news/377758-russian-bombers-isis-raqqa/

>“On February 17, 2017, strategic missile carrying Tu-95 bombers made an operational flight from the territory of the Russian Federation over the territories of Iran and Iraq and conducted an air strike against Islamic State terrorists’ objectives in the Raqqa region using X-101 cruise missiles,” the ministry’s statement says.

Russia Stronk!!!

>>33106534
It's all about flight time, and the idea that these aircraft will still be airworthy 12 years after their over optimistic OSD is laughable. You would need to ground all B52's now and keep them in reserve if you have any hope of reaching 100 years.

this is completely ignoring advances in technology. the latest blocks of tomahawk make B52 pretty redundant

File: C-130 stripped.jpg (251KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 600x400px

>>33106522

you no zero out airframes, anon?

>>33106592
Tu-95 was launching Kh/101 and dropping bombs on Syria last year.

>>33106616
Yep. That one single strike used about 30% of their entire cruise missile supply.

>>33106618
>the latest blocks of tomahawk make B52 pretty redundant

There are no more TLAM-Ns but there are ALCMs with nukes. So your argument is invalid.

>>33106648
source on that claim?

>>33106637
>keeping airframes in storage qualifies them for 100 year aircraft.

I guess the RAF got that last year with the Sopwith Camel then.

>>33106655
Admittedly, wikipedia. Says that they built fewer than 100 combined missiles of all variants of the KH55, which is their only cruise missile.

>>33106654
B52 was retired from the nuclear mission, so i guess you argument is invalid.

>>33106618

the buff will be flying long after you graduate college. it will be flying after they retire the bone. 50/50 on the buff being in service after the spirit retires.

>>33106586
Neat!

>>33106674
You're thinking of the B-1, unless you've got a source?

>>33106671
News says they used that one
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5-101

I don't think russkis would tell how many they have of them in total.
also always keep in mind russkis love to cheat and to lie.

>>33106685
no you're right, i confused B1 with B52.

>>33106616
I believe this was also the first combat use of the Tu-95.
Which if true is pretty amazing since the design has been around for over 50 years.

TU wins because turbo props are far more aesthetic
>>33106106
Well, they can carry a 27 ton tsar bomb

>>33106724
yea Syria was the first time they really used them in a conflict.

seems to do a good job there

>>33106709
...you do realize that the 101 is the conventional-warhead variant of the KH55, right?

>>33106726
>max payload of 33,000lb
>carry a 27 ton/54,000lb bomb
Not without extensive airframe-specific modifications, no it can't.

File: AIR_B-52_Ordnance_Display_lg.jpg (146KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1024x680px

some freedom for you

>>33106747
is it?

seems like two different weapon systems

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5-55
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5-101

also the 101 seems to be in service since only 2013, so its still kinda new I guess

>>33106060
Oh shit that's hilarious. Some poor ruski probably got in huge trouble for allowing everyone to see that comparison.

>>33106588
>1. They have fewer than 100 cruise missiles total
Considering Ukraine had 1600 at the time of the break-up from the USSR alone I highly doubt this.

>2. Half of them are ancient as shit and probably don't work
Most date from the 80s... or are you referring to the B-52 fleet which is indeed for the most part decrepit and basically awaiting to be processed into beer cans.


>3. They only have one family of cruise missile period, the HK-55
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-55
Eeeengkk! Wrong on all accounts. Try again.

>>33106775
That's cool

File: zBWVgtJ.jpg (222KB, 1500x1194px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1500x1194px

>>33106806
Lrn 2 perspective

>>33106656
kek

>>33106867
Vulcan actully had a bigger payload than B52 for most, if not all of it's life. It was only when B52 got wing pylons that things changed. Vulcan never got wing pylons.

>>33106867
The b52 is physically larger than the tu95

File: kh-55.png (80KB, 1729x501px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1729x501px

>>33106793
Yes, it is.

And yeah, it's new as shit. They didn't have a SINGLE non-nuclear ALCM until 2001. Which is why Syria is the first time they've used them.

>>33106901
but not that much

wingspan B52:
>56,39m

wingspan TU95:
>50,04m

lenght B52:
>47 meters

lenght TU95:
>46,9 meters

>>33106807
>hey you said they only had one family of cruise missle, the KH55, and you provided a link!
>here, let me link you the exact same article on the KH55 then call you wrong!
I don't even know what you're trying to do at this point. Are you trying to say that the half-dozen variants of the Hk55 aren't in the same family as the KH55?

>>33106901
By about 2 meters in each axis, nothing like the picture show.

>>33106907
Between Afganistan and Syria which war would the Russians have used Tu-95?

Georgia? oh wait they did use it there too.

>>33106867
Was the poor dumbass your dedushka or something? Look you've already earned your turnip for the day, no need to abase yourself further.

>>33106907
Kh-15P, Kh-59?

>>33106926
The fuselage of the b52 is nearly double the size of the tu95 though.

>>33106957
you're so mad i can't understand you.

>>33106955
Find a single fucking citation of a TU95 firing an ALCM anywhere other than the current Syria conflict.

I fucking dare you.

>>33106200
>the airframes simply can't cope

Unless you are personally involved in current, advanced level (inspection docks, NDI, Depot) Buff airframe inspection and maintenance I doubt your credibility to make that assertion. If you were you'd have been more specific about structure affected. (Former fighter maintainer here.)

People forget those airframes were designed to be overhauled and every Buff flying has been to Depot for more than one "gut rehab" on top of its normal inspection schedules.

Re-engining (again, impressive if an airframe outlives two highly successful engine families!) is practical, and when it was most recently studied B-52 service life (much less than airframe structural life) was projected to 2040. Everything on the fleet has been X-ray and otherwise NDIed repeatedly.

I expect them to be replaced by newer bombers, but to get stealthier aircraft with more modern systems rather than due to airframe life.

There's no way to make B-52 stealthy because of all those pod-mounted engines and the vertical stab.

>>33106957
>dedushka

You mean babushka moron

>>33106932
>>33106926
Does anyone know if the russians stat padded by including the refueling boom in overall length?

>>33106980
Stability 2008

#REKT

>>33106990
>provide a citation
>says 2 words and a meme, provides no link or other proof
LOL YOU SURE REKT ME THERE BUD, YUP, TOTALLY REKT HERE

>>33106990
>exercise
lololololol doesn't count.

File: 1471064826959.webm (2MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 854x480px

>>33106592

>It last fired ALCMs in 2003 against Iraq, the Tu-95 hasn't done any firings.

It has in Syria. Webm related.

>>33106981
>Former fighter maintainer here

stop lying on the internet.

If you had anything to do with aircraft maintenance you'd know that there is literally nothing you can do about airframe fatigue asides from building a new airframe.

>>33107001
>>33107018

>asks for example of launch of ALCM

>Gets it

>can't handle it and tried to move goalposts

There would probably be other examples but russia isnt dumb enough to hunt for non-existant WMD's in the pursuit of regime change.

>>33106981

in support of fighterbro
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/up-to-119b-for-b-52h-maintenenace-modernization-06583/

>>33107028
>literally nothing you can do about airframe fatigue asides from building a new airframe.

and that is exactly what is done. ever fly commercial?

>>33106984
Why would he mean grandma when he said grandpa?

>>33107045
Okay, provide a source saying that a TU-95 actually fired an ALCM during Stability 2008, because the wikipedia article on it gives zero fucking information and all of the sources on wikipedia 404.

>>33107052
>http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/up-to-119b-for-b-52h-maintenenace-modernization-06583/

You realise that upgrade has nothing to do with the airframe? it's all systems equipment.

>>33106586
>To comply with the SALT II Treaty requirements, cruise missile-capable aircraft had to be identifiable by spy satellites. To comply, the B-52 "G" models were modified with a curved wing root fairing.
How does a stealth bomber comply with Salt? I guess it doesn't.

>>33107062
>and that is exactly what is done

asides from the fact that production lines have been closed for more than 50 years.

>>33106980
>Find a single fucking citation of a TU95 firing an ALCM anywhere other than the current Syria conflict

Why does he need to prove that it fired one 9 years ago when it fired one 3 months ago?

We live in the present.

>>33107069

>During the exercises, code-named Stability-2008, Tu-95MS Bears fired live air-launched cruise missiles (ALCM). It was the first time since 1984 - and just the second time in history - the giant aircraft had done that in any exercise.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/30/russia-revives-cold-war-aircraft/

#REKT

>>33107069

Here is a video from said excersises:

>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWqRmQG6Jc0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWqRmQG6Jc0

Go to 2:44.

File: AIR_B-52H_and_B-17_2006_lg.jpg (75KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 800x600px

>>33107077

>> argue metal fatigue / plane wont make it

>programs critical to maintaining B-52 mission capability out to the year 2040.

> to keep nuclear-capable B-2 and B-52s flying into the 2030s and 2040s respectively, with this forecast by the GAO

> they can develop a TF33 upgrade package external link that will keep Boeing’s B-52 bomber flying until the 2040s.

The article provides a list of programs that extend out to 2040 without airframe zero'ing.

>>33106709
>https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5-101
4500 to 5500 range is pretty impressive for a cruise missile. You can pretty much blow the shit out of everything at any time.

>>33107189
>extend out to 2040

Still not 2052

it's almost as if i said it won't be a 100 year bomber because of airframe fatigue.

>>33107088
>production lines have been closed for more than 50 years.

Ever seen an aircraft maintenance facility? Half of the commercial planes you have flown have had their airframes zero'd at the major airlines' maintenance facilities. You don't think the USAF has similar facilities?

>>33106929
>I don't even know what you're trying to do at this point. Are you trying to say that the half-dozen variants of the Hk55 aren't in the same family as the KH55?
You said:
>They only have one family of cruise missile period, the HK-55
Which simply isn't true. they have entire classes of missiles worth apart from strike ALCM ones. Antiship missiles alone have the supersonic Granit, Bazalt, Onyx, Moskit, and subsonic Kh-35. They also have air-launched AShM in the form of Kh-65, and Kh-22. Then you have GLCM like the Rk-55 or the Iskander-K. There's probably a few I haven't dropped, but you get the point.

>>33107210

I dunno, when you get into the 2040s, time rolls on and guess what! 2050 arrives!

Do you know many times they tried to kill the A10? Successful planes have uses find them.
The B52 has lots of spare room in its airframe for new and fun stuff.

>>33107215

>Refurbishing aircraft with flexible wings

it's funny how the 'aircraft maintainer' has suddenly dissapeared now that he was called out.

I'd love him to post an example of a single B52 getting a new main spar, or even provide a name to these mythical B52 maintenance facilities.

>>33107210
>implying all b-52 were off the production lines in 1952

>>33107295

All wings flex.

Military planes get re-wing programs. A6 and A10 are 2 of them. This is a function of government funding. Its not a technical problem.

>>33107347

You're right, the bombers from 1962 (more or less all in service) will have to last to 2062 to be century bombers. even more ridiculous.

>>33107353

Not all wings flex to the same degree.

B52 has a hugely flexible wing. Which is why fatigue in the unreplaceable main spar is an issue.

This is why Vulcan was returned to flight over Victor or even Concorde.

>>33107189
>pic
B-17's really are surprisingly small.

>>33107417
Same length and MTOW as the Su-27.

File: AIR_P-3_Outer_Wing_Replacement_Line_lg.jpg (229KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1024x683px

>>33107379

> airframes will fail due to fatigue
> airframes cant be overhauled
> airframes will fail without overhaul
> production lines closed so cant be overhauled
> not a 100-yr bomber becuase, well off by 2 yrs
>overhaul facilities dont exist
>overhaul facilities dont exist for b52
> Wings will fail and cant be overhauled
>Flexible wings cant be overhauled
>Mainspar can be overhauled

Making this up as we go, I see.

>Not all wings flex to the same degree.
>
>B52 has a hugely flexible wing. Which is why fatigue in the unreplaceable main spar is an issue.

https://www.google.com/search?q=new+wing+programs&oq=new+wing+programs&aqs=chrome..69i57.3519j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=wing+refurbishment+programs&*

>>33107379
>Victor
I miss the ole Victor Bomber. Its design was brutish and ugly. But it looked like a bomber.

>>33107417
The F-18 carries more ordinance than the latest b-17. Nearly twice as much. Almost triple the b-17's long range bomb load according to wikipedia.

>>33105985
>TU-95 or
Are there any videos of Tu-95 strikes like these?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQjdNK6lhdM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88jrZjsNHPc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuS2Tz74y4I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIhGYu5Uc08

>>33106479
Nuclear cruise missiles are the B52's "standard" weapon system.

>>33107514
>i am now imagining a fleet of f-18's over ww2 germany precision striking targets from 47k feet while bf-109s struggle to reach them 7k feet below.
Like guns of the south but not shit.

File: 1306076828866.jpg (12KB, 298x359px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 298x359px

>Both had their first flight while Stalin was still alive

Why did no one build new high capacity long range bombers since the 50s?

>>33107679
Because nuclear deterrence works.

>>33107679
Because missiles are the primary strategic nuclear weapon system.

>>33107679
TU-160, TU22, B2, B1

File: Captain-Picard-Facepalm.jpg (15KB, 500x324px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 500x324px

>>33107295

> I'd love him to post an example of a single B52 getting a new main spar, or even provide a name to these mythical B52 maintenance facilities.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/29/new-minot-air-base-building-opens-for-b-52-mainten/

>>33107474
>https://www.google.com/search?q=new+wing+programs&oq=new+wing+programs&aqs=chrome..69i57.3519j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=wing+refurbishment+programs&*

>thinks links to a google search counts as proof

still waiting for ANY evidence of a B52 main spar being replaced.

You've not refuted anything i've said, keep trying.

>>33107379
Not so much wing flex as cabin pressurization vs depressurization

>>33107679
You dont really need them when a B-2 can drop 80 guided bombs in one run and hit all 80 targets.
https://youtu.be/bjoMQRUWEe8

>>33107739
>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/29/new-minot-air-base-building-opens-for-b-52-mainten/

>literally for washing planes

my sides

keep trying.

File: download (2).jpg (4KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 259x194px

>>33107295

> I'd love him to post an example of a single B52 getting a new main spar, or even provide a name to these mythical B52 maintenance facilities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_Air_Logistics_Complex

>>33107742
B52 wingtips move around 3M during flight IIRC

File: PicardDoubleFacepalm-1.jpg (19KB, 600x478px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 600x478px

>>33107295

> I'd love him to post an example of a single B52 getting a new main spar, or even provide a name to these mythical B52 maintenance facilities.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/21/us/arizona-b-52-restored/

>>33107767
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_Air_Logistics_Complex

>still not a facility that refurbishes B52's

keep trying

>>33107778

>aircraft in storage returns to flight

still not refurbished, still no main spar replaced.

Keep trying.

File: download (2).jpg (8KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 225x225px

>>33107740

>still waiting for ANY evidence of a B52 main spar being replaced.
> wants evidence of maintenance on classified military gear.

Wew lad.

>>33107474

ouch

>>33106200
there are still DC-3 flying. boeing knows how to build a plane.

>>33107085
All B-2s have essentially the same capabilities so there's no need do distinguish them from one-another by satellite. As long as they're visible by satellite and the actual number squares up with the number declared by the US government, it's all good.

>>33108500
>DC-3
>boeing

Kek.

File: Fatigue S-N_curves.png (84KB, 561x364px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 561x364px

>>33107379
>B52 has a hugely flexible wing.
Deflection != stress/strain
A steel cable is hugely flexible; doesn't mean it's any more susceptible to fatigue than a solid rod of the same dimensions.
>unreplacable
Everything is replaceable if you throw enough money at it. But you have a point, I doubt they'll turn the B-52 into the Bomber of Theseus. The main reason they're lasting so long is because the workload's been spread out over such a large fleet of them. Each individual airplane doesn't rack up hours all that quickly, especially compared to airliners which work day-in-day-out for 3 fucking decades.

>>33108800
I don't understand this. Can spy satellites see and/or track the planes while they're in flight? If so, that doesn't sound like a very stealthy or effective weapon. If not, wouldn't they be sitting in hangars where sats can't see them anyway?

>>33106898
>Vulcan actully had a bigger payload than B52 for most, if not all of it's life. It was only when B52 got wing pylons that things changed. Vulcan never got wing pylons.
What in the literal fuck are you smoking?
Vulcan:
>empty weight 83,573 lb
>MTOW 170,000 lb
>payload 21 1,000 lbs bombs, one 17,000lbs blue steel missile or a grav drop nuke
MAX PAYLOAD they could get in the bomb bay is 21,000lbs.

B-52:
>empty weight 185,000 lb
>MTOW 488,000 lb
>payload 70,000 lbs mixed ordinance
The B-52 literally had over three times the payload and four times the range of the Vulcan.

You need to lay off the crack, anon.

>>33105985
They're both fossils

>>33106060
Can the bear mount external pylons? If not that's a huge limiting factor on it's weapons capeabilities.

File: TU-95-MS16-01.jpg (80KB, 1200x600px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1200x600px

>>33109967
Yes, the MS16 and MSM variants can.

>>33106479
Nigger are you retarded? That's half of our mission. It's primary mission load out is 20 AGM 86 b's. With nuclear warheads. It also can carry an external load of 12 jasm's or malds. The only two missiles that it has stopped carrying sense the 80's are the harpoon and the AGM 129.

>>33108933
>Can spy satellites see and/or track the planes while they're in flight?
No. It's for satellite reconnaissance. Russians can count the bombers sitting at any given airbase.
>If not, wouldn't they be sitting in hangars where sats can't see them anyway?
The B-2s? Maybe. There's probably some agreement where Russian advisors are allowed to peek inside @ Whiteman and Guam though.

>>33110051
>There's probably some agreement where Russian advisors are allowed to peek inside @ Whiteman and Guam though
Both US and Russia can make 18 inspections of strategic bases per year. Basically counting warheads and launchers.

File: tu-95ms (18).jpg (184KB, 1500x964px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1500x964px

>>33109967

>>33105985
And fucking loud, contra rotating rotors are very visible on radar

>>33110568
Whats the RCS?

File: tu-95ms with kh-555.jpg (146KB, 600x817px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 600x817px

>>33106747
>101 is the conventional-warhead variant of the KH55
Kh-101 is Kh-101. Conventional variant of Kh-55 is Kh-555.

File: tu-95ms (8).jpg (175KB, 853x1280px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 853x1280px

>>33110568
It's a carrier for 2500-5000 km range cruise missiles. It gives no fucks about radars.

File: B-29 with two external Grand Slams.jpg (157KB, 1024x649px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1024x649px

>>33106898
>Vulcan actully had a bigger payload than B52 for most, if not all of it's life.
No
>It was only when B52 got wing pylons that things changed.
That happened in 1964.
>>33109010
Early B-52s could only carry up to 24x750lbs bombs. External racks DO add a shitload of capacity, as did the more extensive bombbay modifications in 1965.

File: tu-95ms (2).jpg (570KB, 1400x946px) Image search: [Google]

570KB, 1400x946px

>>33106106
>2 tu-95's to carry almost the same bomb load as a single b-52
Two Tu-95 carry 32 cruise missiles. One B-52 carries 20 max.

>>33110718
>Early B-52s could only carry up to 24x750lbs bombs.
>That happened in 1964.
>as did the more extensive bombbay modifications in 1965.
Source.
The initial B-52Bs, which carried 24x1,000lbs bombs plus nuclear payloads, were followed by the B-52Ds (with Big Belly modifications) less than 18 months after introduction in Dec. 1956.

Typical Operation Linebacker B-52D payload, for instance:
>80 Mk 84 500lbs bombs on clips mounted to bomb bay pylons
>another 24 500 lbs bombs on wing pylons, 12 per wing
That's 52,000 lbs in payload right there, as of 1956.

>inb4 argument that wing pylons weren't available until early 60s
That's still 40,000 lbs worth of payload in the internal bays in Dec. 1956. Even if the B-52B couldn't carry 21,000 lbs internally (it most certainly could), the Vulcan was introduce in July 1956. So that's 5 total months where the Vulcan could even remotely have had a larger payload than the B-52. Responding to the claim here >>33106898
>Vulcan actully had a bigger payload than B52 for most, if not all of it's life
We see that possibly 5 months out of a service life for the Vulcan spanning 28 years does not qualify as "most of it's life".

>>33110642
Xbox huge.

>>33106671
Where exactly in the wikipedia does it say bullshit like "they built fewer than 100 combined missiles of all variants of the KH55"?
>>33106747
>extensive airframe-specific modifications
To half-fit it into the airframe.

>>33107019
>ACLMs fly along with their bombers

lol

>>33111125
Nigga u drunk?

>>33110557
The Bear really has a cool aesthetic.

File: tu-95 interceptions.jpg (340KB, 710x3090px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 710x3090px

>>33111243
Ladies seem to like him too.

>>33110929
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-52d.htm
>Less than 6 months after the B-52s became involved in the Vietnam War (B-52Fs were the first to go), the Air Force initiated a special modification program to allow the B-52Ds to carry more bombs. Referred to as Big Belly, the modification program left the outside of the aircraft intact. Modified B-52Ds could still carry twenty-four 500-pound or 750pound bombs externally, but the internal changes were significant. Reconfiguration of the B-52D bomb bay allowed the aircraft to carry 84, instead of twenty-seven 500-pound bombs, or 42, instead of twenty-seven 750 pounders, for a maximum bomb load of about 60,000 pounds-22,000 pounds more than the B-52E.
B-52Ds weren't MANUFACTURED with Big Belly, they were modified with it later on.

>>33110929
>>33111668
And for the racks: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-52f.htm
>In June 1964, the Air Staff approved the modification of 28 B-52Fs under a project known as South Bay. Completed in October of the same year, the modification program allowed selected B-52Fs to carry twenty-four 750-pound bombs externally-almost doubling the aircraft's original conventional bombload.
None of this shit happened as early as you're suggesting it did.

File: F-22-Tu-95.jpg (17KB, 778x486px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 778x486px

Let's get real.
As much of a hardon I have for Russian mil tech, the truth is obvious:
TU-95 is the poor man's B-52.
Doesn't have the range, speed, or look.

And let's be more honest: When the US or its allies intercept a TU with a modern fighter, it makes Russia look fucking retarded.

>Hurr durr here we are in our WW2-looking bomber being escorted by a fucking space-age F-22. RUSSIA STRONK!

Fuck the TU-95. Buff all the way.

>>33107679
Because that tech (big bombers) peaked during Stalin's era. No need to put more into the air.

>>33111777
That is a neat pic.

Also, it really is amazing how large modern fighters are when you see them taking gas from a kc-135 and such. The fighter is around 1/3+ the size of the old commercial airliner it is taking the gas from. F-15s and F-22s are YUGE jets

>>33111981
Even the F-4 was a huge jet. Something like 75 feet long.

>>33112007
Understandable for an intercept oriented jet. Weird to think of something that large having awesome maneuverability today though with comparable MGTOW of a fucking B-29, which is common in both Russian and American jets. Just huge jets with a lot of wings and engines to do 9Gs easily. Modern fighter jets are awesome.

>>33111777

Wow, F-22 is so big compared to Tu-95....Fuck off, russkies, even our jets are nearly the same size as your "bombers"

File: tu-95ms with kh-101.jpg (259KB, 1500x1013px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1500x1013px

>>33111777
>TU-95 is the poor man's B-52.
More like cool man's B-52.
>When the US or its allies intercept a TU with a modern fighter, it makes Russia look fucking retarded.
Making this argument makes you look fucking retarded, as scrambling a fighter off the coast of California to escort a bomber armed with 5000 km range cruise missiles means that was it a real combat mission by that time your airfields would have been burning brighter than the sun.
>WW2-looking bomber
Being armed with 300 km "range" "cruise" missiles B-2 is the only "WWII-looking bomber around.

>>33105985
I'll go with the B-52 because it can serve into 2040 with relative ease on its current engines due to the huge surplus of parts.

The biggest reason the USAF hesitates on that fucker is if it were to get new engines which would require a new center wing or possibly full wing, it would probably serve on into 2060 and we would have centennial air frames.

...and that is kinda bad ass.

>>33106586
SALT was the most cancerous thing to ever happen to the US aside from NATO

b52 because it can still serve well into the 2030s without aging and can be easily adapted for service into the 2040s
that and muh 'nam

File: 189467546189.jpg (45KB, 667x404px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 667x404px

>>33105985
The one that actually has a nuclear mission (for better or worse).

>>33112421
>it can still serve well into the 2030s without aging
Why can't the Tu-95?

>>33112449
expensive
also muh propellers

>>33112456
>expensive
How is it any more expensive than the B-52?

File: Airbus A400M.jpg (301KB, 1867x1119px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 1867x1119px

>>33112456
Propellers are making a comeback, broheim.

>>33112443
They both do, silly.

File: E8HVqfV.jpg (265KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1920x1080px

>>33112489
>comeback
When did they leave?

>>33112473
propellers are getting harder and harder to justify thier use in the military, guzzles gas, less thrust per kg of fuel and newer ones can get more complex than jets. theyre fine for small planes but theyre just not up to the task for modern bombers. dont get me wrong, its a good plane, but its nearing the end of its life

>>33112507
>>33112489
not for full fledged nuclear bombers. as for gunships, VTOL is the future old man

File: an-26.jpg (1MB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2250x1500px

>>33112507
They didn't.

File: gtfo.png (6KB, 78x65px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 78x65px

>>33112514
>VTOL is the future
Next time try a bit thinner.

>>33112535
Luddite

>>33112504
Tu-95 doesn't have a current nuclear mission. It was only used as a platform for testing.

>>33112605
You might want to type 'New START Treaty' into google.

>>33107127
>>33107170
got eem
got eem gud

Tu-95 was the more successful aircraft.

>>33112409
>free foreign bases on the doorstep of your greatest foreign adversary and increased political power over your allies
>a bad thing

congrats lad you're a bit of a mong

>>33111777

> When the US or its allies intercept a TU with a modern fighter, it makes Russia look fucking retarded.

Can the F22 fly that slow without stalling?

>>33113849
Well, F-22 has to be a complete piece of shit to stall at 700 km/h. And not even F-35 is this poorly designed, so I don;t think this is the case. Americans are not this dumb.

imagine your sides splitting at the sight of the admiral kuznetsov and a formation of tu95 coming to attack

the attack would only succeed because we would be laughing too hard to fire back

>>33107019
They sill use that turret at the end of the tail?

>>33113976
I can easily imagine amerishit washtubs' sides splitting from the Kuznetsov's attack. A salvo of missiles with 750 kg HE warheads travelling at supersonic speed tend to have such an effect on its target.

>>33113976
Russian remake of "Dr. Strangelove" with Wide Ivan riding cruise missile out of bear when?

>>33112719
How so?

>>33114172
Better base design for various specialized roles.

File: JhbFKym.jpg (171KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1280x800px

>>33113998
please someone can answer?

>>33112299
this man knows how it is

File: vbuSfIa.jpg (714KB, 1500x1013px) Image search: [Google]

714KB, 1500x1013px

>>33113998
>>33114295

The turret with the auto-cannons is still used but in a different manner. They now fire flare and chaff rounds and thus the turret is used as an impromtu flare/chaff dispenser.

>>33113849
>>33113965

The Tu-95 is the fastest prop driven aircraft in service worldwide. If the F-22A would stall at Tu-95 cruise speeds, it would never be able to leave the ground at all.

Ridiculous.

>>33114972
>The Tu-95 is the fastest prop driven aircraft in service worldwide.
Because everyone switched to jets

File: an-22a.jpg (158KB, 1500x1013px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1500x1013px

>>33115031
>everyone switched to jets
Or did they, dummy?
>>33112489
>>33112507
>>33112516

File: 1487122935448.webm (894KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

894KB, 800x450px

>>33113849
If an F-16 can fly this slow, an F-22 almost certainly can as well.

So which aircraft would win a dogfight?

>>33114972
thanks

File: tu-95 tail.jpg (526KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

526KB, 1024x768px

>>33115420
Bear still has its gun, so there's your answer.

>>33115157
>Or did they, dummy?
>links to transport planes but no bombers
it is like pottery

File: tu-95ms & tu-160 & tu-22m3.jpg (404KB, 1200x913px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 1200x913px

>>33115641
>Moving goalposts
Go be mad somewhere else.

>>33115787
>>Moving goalposts
>Go be mad somewhere else.
it is literally what you did, even more pottery from you

File: tu-95ms & tu-160.jpg (123KB, 1024x649px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1024x649px

>>33115031
>The Tu-95 is the fastest prop driven aircraft in service worldwide.
>Because everyone switched to jets
>Or did they, dummy?
>B-b-b-b-b-but what about bombers!
Go be mad elsewhere.

>>33115974
>>33115787
>y-you mad
Found the vatnik.

File: tu-142 (11).jpg (174KB, 1500x1009px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1500x1009px

>>33116012
>No argument
>Moves goalposts
Found the troll.

>>33116012
Seriously, can someone explain me why russians and vatniks always go for the you mad, you butthurt, you assblasted,... approach? It seems only come from one direction and it doesnt make any sense to begin with. Is it some general way of thinking over there or something?

>>33116039
>Go be mad somewhere else.
>Go be mad elsewhere.
>No argument
you could open a shop with all that pottery of yours

>>33116063
Seriously, can someone explain me why trolls and /pol/fags always go for nonaugmented goalpost shifting? It seems only come from one direction and it doesn't make any sense to begin with. Is it some general way of thinking over there or something?

File: unsuccessful-troll.jpg (63KB, 686x572px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 686x572px

>>33116078
>Claims "everyone switched to jets"
>Gets confronted with real life
>Moves goalposts
>Anyone else is out of argument

>>33106060
Embarrassing desu

>>33116109
>you mad
apperantly that is an arguement now

>is so autistic that he can understand what is actually ment in an discussion
>thinks he is right, because he is technically correct in way it was never ment to be, but he simply cant understand that
autism/10
you probaly go also all mad when someone uses literally wrong

>>33112489
Why would you pick the A400M to make a point? Jesus.

>>33116134
The assumption of you being mad only came up when you shifted goalposts, which is something a mad person does as he loses an argument.
>Is so autistic that he can not admit he was wrong
Autism/10.

File: wg-13 larger than mi-26.jpg (91KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1000x667px

>>33116119
>Wtf is perspective?

>>33116210
>y-you mad
>no! you!

File: F-105.jpg (162KB, 1234x921px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1234x921px

>>33107439
>>33107514

The B-17 was surpassed in size and payload by the F-105D in the 1960s.

To be fair, though, the Thud was a fucking monster.

File: Peacekeeper missile.jpg (761KB, 3000x2272px) Image search: [Google]

761KB, 3000x2272px

>>33107679

Missiles are cheaper than bombers. MIRVs even more so.

File: yes2.gif (2MB, 285x375px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 285x375px

>>33112299
>5000 km range cruise missiles

>roughly 3000 mile range that's air-launched

Ok, I'm genuinely interested. Please explain this...

>>33112613
>START Treaty

>STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty - Treaty

>>33105985
Neither of them. These are weapons of mass destruction and therefore they should be destroyed.

>>33116063
This is really something inherited in russian culture, basically it is something like; it is easier to kill the messanger, then the message. Instead of actually arguing they shift the focus on the person saying it and demand they explain themself over something irrelevant. It is present in many cultures, but not to this degree in many other western cultures, especially not in the other important ones.

>>33117109
Soviet propaganda, going all the way back to the 1910s, revolves around comparative whataboutism:
>look how much better we do this than other countries
>look how much happier our people (especially working class) are than other countries
>look how much more egalitarian our society is
>look how much more scientifically advanced we are
>look how much more vibrant our culture is
etc.

This requires a continuing effort to do the following:
>downplay or censor culturally significant works from other countries
>downplay or censor scientific advancement from other countries
>downplay or censor realistic portrayals of quality of life in other countries
>flat out distort or co-opt scientific/cultural/etc. advances in other countries and pretend they were invented here
etc.

Internationally, this breeds a culture where no Soviet/Russian official can admit a shortfall, wrong or misstep by their own government. Even when their clearly in the wrong. So, the oldest propaganda, diplomatic and KGB tools for muddying the waters revolves around the whataboutism toolkit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
>any criticism is immediately responded to by pointing out any visible deficiencies in the observer
>no reference to or engagement on the original issue
>meant to promote a free-for-all food fight over an issue unrelated to the original point, and thus let it slip away hopefully unnoticed

The other main tactic is a classic KGB (and Putin) favorite:
Accuse the other guy of exactly the same shit you're doing/have done, even if it's patently ridiculous. Works best if you manage it just before the other guy notices what you're doing. This lessens the impact of any outcry from the party being transgressed against, muddies the water and actually convinces some of the less informed parties. It's only human nature to think, "where there's smoke, there's at least some fire", right?

>>33112299
>was it a real combat mission by that time your airfields would have been burning brighter than the sun

Yes.

They would have bombed one airfield and then had JDAMs shoved so far up their ass that they'd be coughing up freedom.

File: c-130j.jpg (438KB, 1600x732px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 1600x732px

>>33117109
>>33117189
It's pretty funny how upset one can get about being proven wrong and lacking any arguments.

>>33117457
Is that for anti-rad or just cleaning?

File: an-24 de-icing.jpg (287KB, 949x633px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 949x633px

>>33117531
It is most likely for de-icing.

>>33117457
>y-ou mad
>You Mad
>YOOOIUUUUUU M AAAADD!?!??!?!!

>>33115641
Man you are such a retard.
I don't even know why the other guy keeps arguing with you.

>>33117926
We all know why, it is the fucking Armatard, who gets offendend the second you say something even slightly against russia, only to sperg out about stuff that he misunderstood intentionally. Go look up the archive, it is always the same with that idiot. Posting time is also right.

>>33107417
Otherway around. B-52s are fuckhuge.

>>33106656
>Doesn't know what depot maintenance is

File: Pilon_b52_W.jpg (6KB, 368x285px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 368x285px

>>33115549
Yeah but the buff can mount an AIM-9LM.
We modded them and then never used it for anything, but if it got wrung out technically a buff can fire an AIM-9

File: 1474747185650.jpg (94KB, 1200x720px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1200x720px

>>33119936
>tfw a B-17 at MTOW could be strapped to the belly of a B-52 and it would still have payload left over
>tfw we could use B-52s to drop entire loaded B-17s on the enemies of freedom

>>33105985
>>33106060
There is much newer airframes of Tu-95MS (and whatever that newer model was, -14x something) flying than B-52s.

So even after the BUFF is long retired and in a museum, the Bear will still be flying.

>>33115368
That it's fucking amassing. Aviation never ceases to amaze

>>33117568
I don't know what it's actually for but i can guarantee it isn't for deicing. Blasting up from under is a piss poor way to get the actual flight control surfaces you need to spray. This is why trucks with booms are used. Plus the us uses glycol and seems to have an orange tint from what ive seen.

>>33120355
What is even going on here?

>>33120551

Its an airshow. Jet is flying likely slow as it possibly can without stalling - you can even see him blipping the throttle a few times if you look close enough. Meanwhile the heli is hauling ass fast as it can to keep up.

Jet breaks off and the heli does its famous barrel roll that russian heli pilots seem to love doing at airshows. Probably doubtful that its useful for combat but it certainly does showcase the maneuverability of the aircraft.

>>33120674
>f16
>apache
>russian pilots
Wew

>>33106671
>only cruise missile model

Oh my sweet summer child, they have a couple more than that. (however, they too are built in very few numbers so far)

ITT: a really bored Russocentrist who's on the defensive to validate his narrative.

ie an insecure vatnik
Putin could announce to the UN tomorrow that the Ocean is made from unicorn piss and these guys will frothing at the mouth, pounding away at their keyboards in defense.

>>33110834
weight nigga

>>33108933
Stealth is radar return reduction, not a cloaking device.

>>33114295
>>33114972
I once read somewhere that they thought about installing a X-band tail radar and turning the tail gun into a anti-AAM CIWS.

I wonder if that ever made it past the design board..

>>33105985

Bear is ass.....If a TU-95 tried to dogfight a B-52 the B-52 would outturn it and have greater vertical. The Bear would be dead within two turns off the merge.

*Turns onto your TU's six*

"nothin' personal, kid."

>>33117531
That is an "anti-salt" wash, our Search & Rescue / Maritime Patrol aircraft do that every time they fly over the ocean.

File: tu-142 blades1.jpg (239KB, 1400x946px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1400x946px

>>33120339
Tu-142. Tu-95MS itself is a derivative of a more modern Tu-142, rather than the previous Tu-95K22. The model line goes like this: Tu-95RTs --> Tu-142 --> Tu-142M --> Tu-95MS. As they developed Tu-142MS (the future Tu-95MS) they considered putting two launch devices for 12 Kh-55 total inside, but it required too much centring rearrangement so they eventually went with just 6 missiles internally. But yeah, the serial production of Tu-95MS began in 1981 and lasted until 1992, so it essentially is the same age as B-1B.

File: Old King Tut.gif (1MB, 207x207px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 207x207px

>>33106028
>Not wearing headsets while flying.

>>33106228
>youngest Tu-95 was made in 1992

Don't confuse modifications and retrofitting for completely new air frame.

File: tu-95ms with kh-101 (2).jpg (166KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1000x667px

>>33120431
Yeah, come to think of it you are right. Also looks wasteful as fuck.
>>33121908
Weight what, nigga? Tu-95 armed with bombs are not produced since early 60s and the ones produced before that only remained in service until mid 80s. Here's Tu-95MSM with 20000 kg of external load alone.

File: tu-142 blades2.jpg (220KB, 1400x947px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 1400x947px

>>33123734
Indeed, don't. Every single serial Tu-95MS was produced between 1981 and 1992.

File: tu-142 (17).jpg (179KB, 1500x1013px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1500x1013px

>>33122344
Anti-salt as in anti-corrosive? Neat. But I thought maritime aircraft are kinda required to be corrosive resistant right away?

>>33123716
>dead russians.jpg

>>33105985

I like the bear because of its A E S T H I C C S

Going deaf is shit tho

>>33113998
>>33114295
Russia is now incorporating the 1RS2-1E agile beam phased array engagement radar found on the Pantsir-S1 into a small ball mount underneath the guns. Chaff launchers will be placed in pods on the sides and 4x57Э6E missiles will be integrated above the guns.
This will give it a solid anti missile capability against any missiles incoming from the rear. Effectively becoming the first plane with a hardkill APS based on a Point defense AA system.

File: tu-95ms with kh-55sm.jpg (83KB, 899x674px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 899x674px

>>33124172
Sounds like bullshit, got any source?

>>33120674
>>33121202
It's Dutch pilots. Note the orange lion on the sdie of the Apache.
Source: kankerinwoner mijzelluf en Horus-XTX de Mat Herben in vermomming.

>>33123851
There's no such thing as a 100% corrosive resistant plane. Aircraft are always going to get fucked up by prolonged exposure to salt water.

>>33122295
you didnt even mention the corkscrew maneuver shitthe b52 would have on that cuddly bear

>>33115787
Great scott! Why is that B-1 flying with those ruskis?!

Oh wait, it's just a carbon copy of American engineering.

>>33123716
Jesus Christ... no hearing protection.

>>33106060
Ayo look at that tiny dick russian bitch boi plane. Nigga so broke he can't aford paint lamo.

File: myasishchev m-20.jpg (69KB, 676x827px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 676x827px

>>33124277
Why did Americans have to steal Russian design?

TU-95

Maximum speed: 830 km/h (516 mph)
Range: 15,000 km (8,100 nmi, 9,400 mi) unrefueled
Service ceiling: 13,716 m (45,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 10 m/s (2,000 ft/min)
Wing loading: 606 kg/m2 (124 lb/ft2)
Missiles: Up to 15,000 kg (33,000 lb), including the Raduga Kh-20, Kh-22, and Kh-55/101/102, or 8 Kh-101/102 cruise missiles mounted on underwing pylons.

B-52

Maximum speed: 560 kn (650 mph, 1,047 km/h)
Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,000 m)
Rate of climb: 6,270 ft/min (31.85 m/s)
Wing loading: 120 lb/ft2 (586 kg/m2)
Thrust/weight: 0.31
Lift-to-drag ratio: 21.5 (estimated)
Bombs: Approximately 70,000 lb (31,500 kg) mixed ordnance; bombs, mines, missiles, in various configurations.

>>33105985

B-52, better record in actual use. B-52 could have been made even better with replacing 8 jets with 4 high bypass turbofans, but that is another story.

File: 4235235235.jpg (2MB, 3116x2498px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3116x2498px

>>33124289
all aerospace industries knew by the late 1940s, that swept wings were the future in aircraft design, especially for larger aircraft.

If you want to go on a strawman and talk about 'copying', how about that time when the Soviets copied the B29?

>>33112489
>Propellers are making a comeback, broheim.

Propellers never went away in tactical airlift.

>>33124340
>If you want to go on a strawman and talk about 'copying', how about that time when the Soviets copied the B29?

Way I see it funniest thing in copying B-29 is the fact that Tupolev had actually better proposals for heavy bomber, but he was told to copy B-29 to the patch. In Stalins Russia that kind of requests weren't ignored.

>>33124340
You began talking bullshit about copying on the first place. So lay aside your strawman B-29 that Soviets never denied they back-engineered and either fuck off or answer the question.

File: tu-64.jpg (73KB, 700x1568px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 700x1568px

>>33124363
Also this. Georgia should pay reparations for the cancellation of Tu-64.

File: tu-95ms (16).jpg (69KB, 1912x1275px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1912x1275px

>>33126212
>There will never be a supersonic Bear
Why live?

Hey is tracking point's M400 yet available ??

B52's are ancient relics, they built new TU's in the 90's.

>>33126348

Don't bears have supersonic propeller tips?

File: tu-95ms (15).jpg (392KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

392KB, 1500x1000px

>>33126469
They do, but I mean the aircraft itself.

Has the Tu-95 even seen combat???

File: tu-95ms (17).jpg (906KB, 1500x1009px) Image search: [Google]

906KB, 1500x1009px

>>33126580
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igzjX1IKULw

>>33126749
Haha, fuck mudslimes

>>33126529
For a vatnik this is probaly enough to declare the plane supersonic.

File: tu-95ms (6).jpg (607KB, 1849x2773px) Image search: [Google]

607KB, 1849x2773px

>>33127003
It sure was enough for you to shitpost.

>>33124376
I didn't mention copying in the first place, vatnik
I see you didn't refer to >>33124293
you know, I think that post pretty much sums it up. B52 is better.
It's okay to come in 2nd place. why is it so difficult for you?

>>33127085
Vatnik butthurt is best butthurt.

best bomber ASMR coming through.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcQeZ_w8ro0&spfreload=10

File: Tupolev Tu-114 Rossiya.jpg (46KB, 750x440px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 750x440px

Plowshare from a sword. Want.

>>33127805
Oh but you did, fatnik, and no useless wiki copypaste will change that. Answer the question, fatnik.

File: 1473253428854.jpg (18KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 400x400px

>>33127900
>fatnik

>>33127900
????????
literally facts
literally information posted
and it doesn't answer your question because it does not reaffirm your beliefs?

>>33127900
you remind me of the RT comment section of YouTube

File: tu-160 (12).jpg (664KB, 1400x946px) Image search: [Google]

664KB, 1400x946px

>>33127841
>That halo in the clouds
I came.

File: 610A55C0-D4F2-40C8-9F96-E2E6BEE776AC-313-00000040DB0E4A95_tmp.jpg (3KB, 301x167px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 301x167px

>>33124282

>>33124282
paintjob is on lay-away from china

>>33127920
>Up to 15,000 kg
>literally facts
Literally wrong, see >>33123812.
>>33127914
>>33127930
Answer the question, fatnik.

>>33127980
can I see your sources for 20000kg payload, then?
>Literally wrong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2Rdf0n_Lsg

File: tu-95ms with kh-101 (1).jpg (117KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1000x667px

>>33128006
Are you blind? I just linked you the fucking photo. You need another one?

>>33127920
>>33127930
So you know who you are talking to and since stuff gets so repetitive around him:

From former threads:
>READ THIS:
>This guy right here >>32731071 is the Armatard, idiot beyond repair, vatnik to the bones, annoyance for everyone, even the other vatniks doesnt side with him, after he started spreging out again. He will constantly declare himself winner of the discussion despite no one agreeing, he will continuously switch between insulting, he thinks it is banter, and demanding an logical arguement. Errors doesnt count for him, but every minor thing he nitpicks about changes of course everything, while he cant say something without being vague. He is constantly fucking up threads about russian stuff or tries to smear other nations, he cant stop screaming Fatnik all day long, there are people who think every second Fatnik posted on /k/ is actually made by him and given how hard he tries at everything they are probaly right especially it seems to align with his posting time. Also he always has to be right, no matter how non revelant the things he says are to the threads or discussions, if you said something he doesnt like, he will spend the next hours baiting you and trying to find something where you are wrong on. This guy simply needs psychological medical attention, but instead he chooses to shitpost on the internet, since he cant get attention otherwise. People already complained about him from other subboards.

>>33128035
Even more:
>A favorite of who I suspect to be the same vatnik was to claim that the S-400 at a range of 400km can detect and distinguish the MALD-J from real targets despite any and all jamming and even distinguish between MALD-J and guided munitions despite both being the same physical size.
>When being prompted for explanation of such outlandish claims the respone always ended up at
>>MALD-J
>>defeating anything other than rusty SA-2s
>being spammed as a response.
>"This fatnik is of broken" was also a reoccurring phrase.
>When actually trying to debate, the vatnik refused to meet any question asked and always shifted focus or danced around with vauge and unclear responses coupled with faulty logic and outright falsehoods.
>If its not the same guy we're dealing with here it must be someone who does a is a carbon copy of him and must be a guy on the same night shift at the web brigade as it is like 3am in russia now, the same time as the MALD-J vatnik went to work.

And another:
>Armatard
>Who?
-Vatnik like you
-Talks like you
-Doesnt really answered questions like you
-Is overly vague like you
-Doesnt cared no one agreed with him or supported what he said like you
-Still said that his claims are accepted everywhere like you
-Wanted to tell us that the Armata is smaller than M1A2
-Spammed it months long, attacked everyone stating otherwise, but got BTFO in the end
-Tried to talk himself out of stuff like you
-Disapeared magically after that
-People acting like him magically appear after that
-Those people of course never where him
-Those people magically also used same phrases like him

File: Yoba ратник.jpg (245KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1000x750px

>>33128035
Uh oh, it's the poor broken fatnik again. Answer the question, sissy.

File: putin & a suka (1).jpg (62KB, 604x579px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 604x579px

>>33128047
Delicious fatnik tears.

>>33128047
And more:
>For god sake, cant you even once look at something without altering it, so it looks like you are right?
>>I didn't spam anything about Armata,
>So you just did what is mentoined in the last part of >>32095536 then.
>I recall asking about its size,
>You not only didnt say that you are a different person, but downright asked a question, that you could have answered yourself by simply googling it, but instead you demanded to get spoonfed, right after another vatnik played the proofster game and it was said that stupid questions aint getting answered anymore. And after getting called out for that behaviour a long time and not getting it (You dont seem to get that by even now!), some anon was kind enough to spoonfed you.

>Now do your little nitpicking dance of saying you said you were a different person, while ignoring you didnt do it at the start, when it mattered and just so you do your "but i am not that person, how dare you to think i am, when i continue for the guy before me and dont tell anyone, god are you stupid" dance.

>>getting loads of butthurt in response and one valid answer with the picture of its trackwheel with the actual dimensions on it.
You got called for the shithead you were and the shitposting you did.

>Do you even grasp what is happening here?

>A thread full of people disagreeing with you and all you can do is bend and squirm around the stuff you said so it could look for yourself like you are right? That constant misinterpreting so you can be "techincally" right, but not in that what was actually ment?

>A normal person would get that there is something wrong with him. You dont. Why is that so?

>You have no one supporting you. You have no one understanding how you can up with that logic.

>The attention you are getting here is not something you get through positive acting, it is downright objection and disbelieve. >Dont try to fool yourself you are just a rusemaster or other bullshit.

>Seriously get help.

So its 31,500 kg for the B52 vs the Tu95's 20,000kg
>with 20000 kg of external load alone
Because that's the maximum payload.
https://fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-95.htm
The B52 has a higher payload regardless of Tu95 variant you wish to compare it to.
B52 has a higher ceiling, cruise speed, and range which are keys to a successful strategic bomber. That's being 100% objective.

File: Firefox_Screenshot_2016-10-05T16-36-48.193Z.png (530KB, 473x468px) Image search: [Google]

530KB, 473x468px

>>33128063
>>33128074
Let your butthurt flow through you.

so since op is ignoring all the hard posts
why is ur currency worth less than the ukrainian currency
1 US Dollar equals
58.45 Russian Ruble

1 US Dollar equals
27.00 Ukrainian Hryvnia

>>33128140
no wonder your entire economy has to be run by a handful of ogliarchs if all russians peasents think this is good.

>>33126212
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

File: tu-95k22 with kh-22.jpg (141KB, 920x698px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 920x698px

>>33128091
They key to a successful strategic bomber is its ability to hit the enemy industry and infrastructure. 30 tons of bombs won't help you with this. Long range cruise missiles will. B-52 is overall a bit larger and heavier. It doesn't make it better, as they both are perfectly capable of fulfilling their role of missile trucks.
>TU-95K22
>One or two H-22 missiles
Nice, another compilation of bullshit, pic related.

>>33128140
>>33128248
>>>/pol/

>>33128313
yeah your right, I was so dumbfounded I forgot where I was, lets get back to our discussion about who would win a dogfight between 70 year old strategic bombers.

File: tu-95ms (13).jpg (616KB, 1500x1013px) Image search: [Google]

616KB, 1500x1013px

>>33128360
A discussion about who would win a dogfight between 70 year old strategic bombers is by far more civilised than /pol/ shitposting.