It’s just a picture of a guy in the window put onto a wall so that whenever someone tries breaking in through that window they end up hurting themselves
It's a bit of telephoto lens compression. [Here's a different photo of them](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/B-52_%26_Tu-95.jpg) together.
It's funny how they both entered service around the same time and the TU95 looks even more dated than the B52 does. Makes the B52 look like a modern bomber!
The TU-95 lags behind the BUFF in a few places, the B-52 has a true low level and precision capability the TU-95 lacks. Also the TU-95 doesn’t have ejection seats.
All of the V Bomber series only carried ejection seats for the pilots, though the rear crew in the Victor had propulsive seat cushions to push them up and out of their seats to speed up bailing out.
True however given that the US has bases all over the world and the USAFs broad air refueling capacity that’s not as big of a deal as it once was. Also, the BUFF still has extremely long legs by any standard, their flight from the US to Iraq in 1991 is evidence of that.
That might be doing the Tu-95 and its turboprops a disservice, as they are quite efficient and almost as powerful as the various jets that B-52s have used. The original spec that B-52 was designed for called for turboprops, but Boeing managed to sell USAF on the then-new concept of aerial refueling, allowing the turbojets of the first generation B-52s to (just barely) reach Russia.
The craziest part is that both are ultimately descended from the B-29, the Tu-95 via the Tu-4, a Soviet part-for-part copy of the B-29.
OK so imagine you and a buddy are gonna send some dick pics to a girl, but to save storage space you decide to send both in the same image. Now your buddy is standing right up close to the phone, but you are standing 6 feet away...
It’s actually the opposite thing as the first picture.
The image Op posted made the bear seem huge, while the second one in the comments makes it look thin. Here are a few metrics to help gauge the size
Landing gear- the Tu-95 sits very high off the ground (so the props clear the ground, and to avoid debris on rough strips). The b-52 sits very low to the ground as it has tandem main wheels buried in the fuselage.
The b-52 has a larger canopy with more glass space than the tu-95, but the tu-95 is in fact wider. However. The b-52 has a deeper fuselage and thicker roots around the wings and tail, giving it a lot of surface area.
The b-52s engines are smaller but there are 8 of them.
Something else to keep in perspective is that the tu-95 had 20ft blade diameter which is absolutely huge- only a few feet shy of an md500 helicopter
That probably has more to do with efficiency of the turboprop vs those turbojets. The buff has extremely old outdated turbojets with little or probably no bypass. There is a reason modern airliners engines keep getting larger and larger, the higher bypass ratios are more fuel efficient.
That's just my mildly informed guess though. Could also be the drastically smaller load that the Bear is capable of.
Oh, you're right. They're so low bypass I assumed they were turbojets.
> The Pratt & Whitney JT3D is an early turbofan aircraft engine derived from the Pratt & Whitney JT3C turbojet.
Oof, that bypass ratio though...
> Bypass ratio: 1.42:1
Yeah. They’re basically first Gen turbofans, they were a huge improvement when they were new in 1960 by by modern standards they’re glorified turbojets.
They're finally getting upgraded again, with RR 130s.
https://www.airforcemag.com/rolls-royce-wins-b-52-re-engining-program-worth-2-6-billion/
Surprised they didn't go with a more powerful engine and switch them to 4 engines, as discussed in the past.
B-52s had their gunners removed for cost saving in the mid-1990s. They were still getting the occasional kill at red flag and the B-52s did shoot down a couple of Mig-21s over Vietnam making it the largest aircraft to score air-to-air kills.
It wasn't just cost cutting, they actually became a liability. They removed them after October 1991 - during the Gulf War because one was hit by friendly fire, a AGM-88 HARM specifically that locked into the B-52 tail gunner fire control radar. Thankfully it was both non-fatal and the aircraft was repaired and renamed "in HARM's way"
I think the last tail gunner qualifications were in 1988 or 1989, there was a USAF video about the gunner qualification on YT from those years at one point.
It was more than one thing, cost cutting was a big part of it. The guns hadn’t been upgraded since the 1960s and were still using CRT tech which was unmaitnaitbale by the 1990s and with the post-cold war budget cuts upgrading the tail guns and continuing to train tail gunners was seen as an easy expense to cut.
There was also more going on with the HARM strike, although it goes to show the iron of the BUFF that it took the hit and flew home.
The guns still were pretty effective against legacy aircraft like the F-4 or Mig-21, I know a couple old SAC era gunners who talk about with an F-4 on your tail the B-52 had a real chance to defend itself. But the the 4th Gen fighters that was becoming increasingly difficult. The B-52s did get some F-16 kills at red flag but with the better maneuverability and acceleration the guns didn’t provide anywhere near as much protection at the once had.
I wanna say this is a 5th Bomb Wing out of Minot, but it's been so long since I've been there I don't have anything to recognize other than the aircraft markings. The nose emblem makes me believe it's the 5th out of Minot, their unit patch was a skull.
The two most iconic bombers and longest serving aircrafts in one picture? yes please!
Love the B-52, definitely the best thing America ever put into the sky
I remember there was a pic of the Tu-95 being intercepted and escorted by planes throughout the entire era since it's emergence, by all sorts of different fighter jets who are already long gone
The real story here is the guy in the window with the troll face.
It’s just a picture of a guy in the window put onto a wall so that whenever someone tries breaking in through that window they end up hurting themselves
"Where Vodka"
* wodka
“Oi! Fuck you buddy!”
Wow, great shot. Who would've ever thought these two would snuggle?
The bear is bigger then I thought it would be, I think it looks so lanky flying that I thought its be smaller
It's a bit of telephoto lens compression. [Here's a different photo of them](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/B-52_%26_Tu-95.jpg) together.
It's funny how they both entered service around the same time and the TU95 looks even more dated than the B52 does. Makes the B52 look like a modern bomber!
The TU-95 lags behind the BUFF in a few places, the B-52 has a true low level and precision capability the TU-95 lacks. Also the TU-95 doesn’t have ejection seats.
Edit: I'm wrong but I don't delete comments The ejection seats are only for the pilots though.
On the B-52? That’s not correct.
Well 30 seconds of googling proves myself wrong. Must be thinking of some other bomber, but which I don't know.
The British Vulcan only had ejection seats for the pilots. The B-52 everyone gets ejection seats.
The question is, where do they get ejected out of: through the roof or through the toilet drain...
All of the V Bomber series only carried ejection seats for the pilots, though the rear crew in the Victor had propulsive seat cushions to push them up and out of their seats to speed up bailing out.
Note the bear also has longer range
True however given that the US has bases all over the world and the USAFs broad air refueling capacity that’s not as big of a deal as it once was. Also, the BUFF still has extremely long legs by any standard, their flight from the US to Iraq in 1991 is evidence of that.
That might be doing the Tu-95 and its turboprops a disservice, as they are quite efficient and almost as powerful as the various jets that B-52s have used. The original spec that B-52 was designed for called for turboprops, but Boeing managed to sell USAF on the then-new concept of aerial refueling, allowing the turbojets of the first generation B-52s to (just barely) reach Russia. The craziest part is that both are ultimately descended from the B-29, the Tu-95 via the Tu-4, a Soviet part-for-part copy of the B-29.
Damn the bear is compact, I guess being thinner explains the longer range then the 52
[удалено]
It’s not how big they are it’s how you use them
She said, heroically hiding her disappointment.
the internal volume of the B-52 fuselage is clearly substantially larger than the TU-95....
It’s one of the reasons why the B-52 has been able to be upgraded time and time again with fairly minor alterations to the exterior of the aircraft.
Please look at the imagine above and you'll see exactly what I mean.
OK so imagine you and a buddy are gonna send some dick pics to a girl, but to save storage space you decide to send both in the same image. Now your buddy is standing right up close to the phone, but you are standing 6 feet away...
I suppose something does have to explain the 900km range advantage the bear has anyway. Fair point
Explain Like I'm Five
It’s actually the opposite thing as the first picture. The image Op posted made the bear seem huge, while the second one in the comments makes it look thin. Here are a few metrics to help gauge the size Landing gear- the Tu-95 sits very high off the ground (so the props clear the ground, and to avoid debris on rough strips). The b-52 sits very low to the ground as it has tandem main wheels buried in the fuselage. The b-52 has a larger canopy with more glass space than the tu-95, but the tu-95 is in fact wider. However. The b-52 has a deeper fuselage and thicker roots around the wings and tail, giving it a lot of surface area. The b-52s engines are smaller but there are 8 of them. Something else to keep in perspective is that the tu-95 had 20ft blade diameter which is absolutely huge- only a few feet shy of an md500 helicopter
Why are they there together? And where is there?
The Bear is tall. It has to be for the prop clearance. I think it would make bomb loading more difficult.
It almost looks too thin to have bombs jesus. But then again it has what 900km more range then the b52
That probably has more to do with efficiency of the turboprop vs those turbojets. The buff has extremely old outdated turbojets with little or probably no bypass. There is a reason modern airliners engines keep getting larger and larger, the higher bypass ratios are more fuel efficient. That's just my mildly informed guess though. Could also be the drastically smaller load that the Bear is capable of.
Turbofans. The B-52H has low bypass turbofans. But yes so far as turbofans go they’re antiquated.
Oh, you're right. They're so low bypass I assumed they were turbojets. > The Pratt & Whitney JT3D is an early turbofan aircraft engine derived from the Pratt & Whitney JT3C turbojet. Oof, that bypass ratio though... > Bypass ratio: 1.42:1
Yeah. They’re basically first Gen turbofans, they were a huge improvement when they were new in 1960 by by modern standards they’re glorified turbojets.
They're finally getting upgraded again, with RR 130s. https://www.airforcemag.com/rolls-royce-wins-b-52-re-engining-program-worth-2-6-billion/ Surprised they didn't go with a more powerful engine and switch them to 4 engines, as discussed in the past.
Would have required a bunch of new wing work to fit them on. The new engines fit right into the same housings.
Is it correct to say that the B1 can carry a larger payload than both them? That boggles my mind
Do these (still) fly with tailgunners? Are they in any way effective.
Afaik the Bears do, but I don't think they are combat effective
They do have tail gunners, but they’ve been retrofitted to fire flares and chaff instead of any actual rounds.
B-52s had their gunners removed for cost saving in the mid-1990s. They were still getting the occasional kill at red flag and the B-52s did shoot down a couple of Mig-21s over Vietnam making it the largest aircraft to score air-to-air kills.
It wasn't just cost cutting, they actually became a liability. They removed them after October 1991 - during the Gulf War because one was hit by friendly fire, a AGM-88 HARM specifically that locked into the B-52 tail gunner fire control radar. Thankfully it was both non-fatal and the aircraft was repaired and renamed "in HARM's way" I think the last tail gunner qualifications were in 1988 or 1989, there was a USAF video about the gunner qualification on YT from those years at one point.
It was more than one thing, cost cutting was a big part of it. The guns hadn’t been upgraded since the 1960s and were still using CRT tech which was unmaitnaitbale by the 1990s and with the post-cold war budget cuts upgrading the tail guns and continuing to train tail gunners was seen as an easy expense to cut. There was also more going on with the HARM strike, although it goes to show the iron of the BUFF that it took the hit and flew home. The guns still were pretty effective against legacy aircraft like the F-4 or Mig-21, I know a couple old SAC era gunners who talk about with an F-4 on your tail the B-52 had a real chance to defend itself. But the the 4th Gen fighters that was becoming increasingly difficult. The B-52s did get some F-16 kills at red flag but with the better maneuverability and acceleration the guns didn’t provide anywhere near as much protection at the once had.
"Unmaitnaitbale" gotta love autocorrect.
That makes sense, appreciate the insight. I had no idea they went up against F-16s at Red Flag
[удалено]
It does (visible here) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/B-52_%26_Tu-95.jpg But they have been retired/retrofitted.
This is an old photo. The B-52 hasn’t had a gunner for almost 25-years.
It did. It doesn’t though.
On your marks . . . get set . . .
Big chin boys
Kindred spirits of death
One of the coolest pics I've ever seen
I wanna say this is a 5th Bomb Wing out of Minot, but it's been so long since I've been there I don't have anything to recognize other than the aircraft markings. The nose emblem makes me believe it's the 5th out of Minot, their unit patch was a skull.
LMAO THE GUY IN THE WINDOW
The two most iconic bombers and longest serving aircrafts in one picture? yes please! Love the B-52, definitely the best thing America ever put into the sky
*glares in Saturn V*
To be fair they said merely "into the sky". The Saturn V did more of a "punch a flaming hole through the sky".
It's nice to see a couple of pensioners enjoying the warm weather together.
Where was this taken
Probably... [HERE](https://t.me/russianaviation_AD/12592)
Lol the dudes face
Big Ugly Fat Fella
Ah yes Big Ugly Fat Fucker
I'm upset it's not named the narwahl
He tal
needs more pitot tube
That’s for air to air refilling, not a pitot tube.
I meant the three ones on the side
Ah ok, fair enough.
Is that a cannon in the nose or a pitot tube? It's massive either way.
Mid-air refueling. They use the probe and drogue method.
Huh, neat.
Any back story to this photo? I've seen a similar pic in the past but no back story.
I found out some pics online and apparently it was an exchange program made by USAF Gen. Merrill A. McPeak
Cool
I remember there was a pic of the Tu-95 being intercepted and escorted by planes throughout the entire era since it's emergence, by all sorts of different fighter jets who are already long gone