The Tu-95: Dropping Russian Bombs for 100 Years

Make your beard absolutely legendary with Beard Blaze: beardblaze.com/
Simon's Social Media:
Twitter: / simonwhistler
Instagram: / simonwhistler
Love content? Check out Simon's other KZbin Channels:
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
Casual Criminalist: / @thecasualcriminalist
Today I Found Out: / todayifoundout
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
XPLRD: / @xplrd
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526

[@johnharris6655]

There is a joke where an American f-15 pilot intercepted a TU-95 just outside American Air space. This was frequent and the pilots sometimes recognized this, the F-15 pilot said "Hey Ivan, watch this" The F-15 did a couple of rolls, flew around the bomber and then back into position, the Russian pilot said "not bad but watch this" The Bomber did nothing but the pilot left and came back the America responded "What did you do, I saw nothing, the Russia said "I got up, went to the bathroom, had a smoke grabbed a sandwich and a coffee while reading a magazine, do that in your F-15"

[@sammysam2615]

Simon could narrate grass growing and it would be fascinating

[@arnobreedt5048]

Petition for a megaproject on grass

[@kayalee783]

Tonight we talk about soft leaf buffalo but first a word about our sponsors rotting turtle

[@dustinflatt5504]

I agree 100% 😆😆

[@pamo7261]

or paint drying

[@timpgod]

I'd watch that on surfshark

[@bigratkiller1]

Propellers never "fell out of fashion"....they remain the most common form of aircraft propulsion to this day

[@phillipamorris422]

Outside of rotorcraft I would definitely say propellers fell out of fashion.

[@paulsteaven]

@@phillipamorris422 not reall tho, every military still uses propeller driven aircrafts. Same goes to some civilian airlines.

[@ChoongaLoonga]

@@phillipamorris422 c 130 and airbus a400,are we joke to you

[@ProbablyNotLegit]

​@@phillipamorris422one could argue that the speed of the A10 makes it a de facto rotorcraft 🤣

[@ignitionfrn2223]

2:10 - Chapter 1 - Cold war 3:10 - Chapter 2 - Development 5:30 - Chapter 3 - The bear 7:35 - Chapter 4 - Operations 9:20 - Chapter 5 - The bomb to end all bombs 11:20 - Chapter 6 - Variations 12:35 - Chapter 7 - Post cold war 14:15 - Chapter 8 - 1st combat 14:45 - Chapter 9 - The survivor

[@warrenwattles8397]

This needs to have a comparison video with the B-52. Both early Cold War behemoths, tasked with the same missions, and both lasting longer than anything else in service.

[@bodamian_bg]

B- 52 has even reached the status of a pop icon..unlike the TU 95...for reasons *:)

[@BrightBlueJim]

Yes. It seems like each has its reasons for remaining, seventy years after its introduction. Both have subsequent aircraft that took over their respective missions, but something keeps them viable. Maybe that they are both so freaking ugly, nothing else inspires the kind of fear that more modern designs just can't compare with. If you look at the U.S. B-58 or B-1b or Russia's corresponding Tu-22M and Tu-160, all of these look like big-ass fighters. So even though any of these could turn any city into rubble, none are particularly scary. (Don't even mention the B-2; this looks like nothing else ever concocted, so how are we supposed to picture its scale?) But take the BUFF or the Bear, either of whose roar you can feel in your guts, if you add to that their sinister appearance, you are going to vote for whatever measures are necessary to keep that beast AWAY. The same could have been said for the B-29, B-50, and even the B-36, at one time, but alas, none of these was going to be capable of long-term domination of the sky, due mainly to their antiquated engines. They all LOOKED the part, but there's a certain point where you just have to give up on them. But I really only bring up the B-29 because I've seen pictures of it on the apron with modern Boeing airliners, and the poor Stratofortress is dwarfed by them, but without such context, they are as bad-ass as anything else ever built. Which may explain why the Air Forces of neither the USA nor Russia ever allow their premiere bad boys to be seen next to modern-day commercial planes. Or not - seeing a BUFF refueling from a KC-135 takes nothing away from its presence. I've seen this from above, and it is indeed a sight to see.

[@JohnDoe-pv2iu]

@@bodamian_bg the TU 95 is a Icon and sort of a Pop icon in the Russian youth. It seems there are a lot of young people in Russia that think the Soviet Union days were a Glamorous time of Russian strength. It seems know one told the kids about food, freedom and persecution... Ya'll Take Care and be safe, John

[@BrightBlueJim]

Oops - Superfortress. Stratofortress is the B-52.

[@robertharper3754]

@@JohnDoe-pv2iu, don't feel bad, there are plenty of youth here in the US that admire the Soviet Union very much. We should be allowed to throw history books at them.

[@Billhatestheinternet]

Amazing how much the B-52 and TU-95 share in common for history. Both debuted at the same time, both designed to do one thing. Yet both have done vastly different things over their lifetimes (B-52's have never dropped a nuke in anger, but always carpet bombed or precision munitions over "primitive rebel" types.). Both are scheduled for a no earlier than 2040 retirement. At least the TU-95 still has it's tail cannon (manned at that).

[@miquelescribanoivars5049]

Well the Tu-95 has saw action on Syria a few years back.

[@donaldnoell5378]

Cause it's slow af boy and Russia doesn't know how to modernize anything.

[@naphackDT]

As I commented on the B52 video, once you have a strategic bomber that can haul serious weight over long distances, there isn't much need to modernize as that's the only criteria for long range bombers. And given the relative fuel efficiency of the Bear, there isn't much need to develop a replacement in the first place since there won't be any savings in operating costs that could offset the costs for the long and tedious design and development process.

[@daveaxford9244]

I believe that the Bretton Woods agreement was a major driver in the cold war that no one seems to discuss. How about a deep dive into Bretton Woods and it's ramifications globally?

[@Internetbutthurt]

Very possibly. Little known fact is that the UK pound and Soviet ruble were also supposed to be reserve currencies after the war. The US may not be in the debt ridden state of inevitable collapse if this was upheld.

[@BlackBuzzzard]

It's a standoff weapon that releases cruise missiles 1500 miles from enemy airspace. Basically an aviation truck.

[@thegulagspeak]

The funny thing is, despite of being designed to evade US's airspace, Tu-95 never have to do so. After upgraded, it carried long-range nuclear cruise missiles, meaning it can drops missiles outside of US's airspace and still can hits the initial targets. Which means Tu-95 still can be used even how old and outdated it is, since its cruise missile is what matters most.

[@bigdaddy7119]

That’s actually 8 thunderous, contra rotating propellers. 😉

[@lucaskp16]

4 since when you say contra rotating propellers is already know each engine unit has 2

[@bigdaddy7119]

Seraphine uh, negative. Being contra rotating has nothing to do with the fact that there are 8 props.

[@111076tom]

@@bigdaddy7119 This is basic math Daddy71. The props beeing contra rotating actually means they cansel eachother out. Not many know this, but the truth is the Tu-95 has ZERO props...

[@bigdaddy7119]

Tom Nikolaisen I *really* hope that you’re being facetious or joking. 🤣🤣

[@nolan1481]

Semantics...

[@phillmaltese757]

I love this plane more than any other design today or tomorrow.

[@darthdooku6246]

Only swept wing turboprop in the world

[@Kirovets7011]

Me too!!👍👍❤

[@BrightBlueJim]

@@darthdooku6246 In response to "why do turboprops always have straight wings?", Google says, "Propeller tips become supersonic way below the speed that wings start to become transonic." Of course, in the case of the Tu-95, the Soviets weren't going to let a little thing like supersonic propeller tips get in their way!

[@InspectorGadget923]

Nebraska is home to Offutt AFB, one of the US' main coordination airbases in war times. It would have been easily in the top 5 places to get nuked during the Cold War.

[@BrightBlueJim]

I've heard the same said about Norfolk, Virginia, home to not just Tactical Air Command, but also the world's largest naval base. However, there was never a "top 5" targets. The whole point of Mutually Assured Destruction was that NO place would be safe. During the Cold War, I had access to maps of a portion of the U.S., showing known or presumed Soviet missile targets. Around each target point was a circle showing the area of >50% mortality. There was more area covered by these circles than not. The vast majority of these targets had no discernible military value. Considering that ALL population centers were covered by multiple overlapping circles, the conclusion was that had an all-out nuclear exchange ever occurred, the immediate death toll would have been more than 90% of the population of the country.

[@buckhorncortez]

I always figured Albuquerque, NM would be right up at the top of the list...

[@war8036]

If you live by a military base, airbase, port, government facility, or factory that makes any military related hardware or software there is at least 6-10 nuclear warheads targeting you right now.

[@dystopianlucidity4448]

Tinker AFB in Oklahoma was a top tier nuclear target as well. E3 sentry AWACS are based there, also a depot base for BUFFS and a squadron of B1’s.

[@BrightBlueJim]

@@dystopianlucidity4448 Everybody likes to think that they are important, but I'll say it again: there WERE no "top tier" targets. When your delivery is by bombers like the Tu-95 and B-52 that you can only expect to hit one target each, and your mission is tactical advantage, you prioritize targets, but this was the case only until the late 1950s. When your objective shifts to deterrence through terror and you have thousands of land- and submarine-based missiles that launch practically simultaneously and have multiple warheads, you end up targeting towns down to population 10,000 or less. That was the reality of the Cold War - body count became the primary metric. Tinker AFB's value as a target was less about military assets than about being one of the overlapping circles that covered and surrounded Oklahoma City.

[@acewyvern3489]

will you do a video on the Kuznetzov class carriers? or even the entile russian/chinese/Indian Carrier lineup?

[@theflame5919]

Admiral Kuznetsov (Variyag class), isn't a carrier. Chinese "carriers" are based on that design. What is it then? It's a super heavy armored cruiser, with a flight deck. Main arnament are its heavy ship to ship nuclear capable missiles, granite class. It's an extremely expensive ship, boasting every weapon system imaginable on it. So much so, what Russia sold everything to China, and kept the least expensive ship (diesel one, nuclear there sold off). Even so, it's mostly kept in dry dock, to cut costs. Even in that capacity, cost of maintenance is still enough to cover the cost of building a new strategic sub every 4 years. Its insanely overpowered vessel, built for a WW3, massive naval engagements, and is too prohibitively expensive to use for demonstration/projection of naval power. China is rich enough to do that anyway... but Russia isn't.

[@acewyvern3489]

@@theflame5919 i know, but it still would be interesting to see the entire history of the Russian Navy or similar

[@theflame5919]

@@acewyvern3489 I neglected to specify primary purpose of that vessel. Its designed to be capable to engage and destroy an entire US carrier group by itself, with no support. In other words, assuming it could reach the engagement range, regardless if the ship survives or not, its guaranteed to sink the entire US carrier group. That is its primary purpose. It's also why it's such a monstrosity of a weapon platform, and why its impossibly expensive to maintain even in drydock. / Russian navy, is highly secretive... its primary component are submarines. / History of the Russian navy, as a standing navy, begins with Peter the Great, however, Russia being a river civilization, longboat where used for trade and war since 8ad at least. So there is a long naval tradition in Russia, which predates the standing navy. / yeah, it would be. Russia, US, Britain are the most technological and veteran navies, with lots of stories, in the world today. Absolutely.

[@SIeepyBull]

If the americans made this then it would've been called the omegafortress

[@macsmith2013]

Or the OMGfortress.

[@BrightBlueJim]

@@macsmith2013 Well, they DID make this, and they called it the B-52 Stratofortress. Which I like better than omegafortress, although OMGfortress pretty much covers the feeling.

[@lastguy8613]

I think these days it's considered the LMFAO Fortress, would get blown out of the sky!

[@codyg7936]

@@lastguy8613 alas there are but so many Anti air missiles…should a large enough EMP happen I think the handful that could be would be brought out of retirement….something is better than nothing

[@hoss3433]

But they can't skip super duper fortress. That just wouldn't be right lol

[@AvB.83]

Imagine we would be doing the same with cars... just fitting them with new engines, gearboxes, suspensions, brakes, steering, computers etc. We could have Cadillac Eldorados doing 40 mpg with most of the safety systems of modern cars instead of Ford Focus or Volkswagen Golf. The look of modern cars is insulting to the eyes, and if Mercedes' new electric cars are anything to go by, it's only getting worse :D

[@mattfleming86]

I wholeheartedly believe that the manufacturers are fully aware of this, thus the tradition of making changes every year and completely abandoning a platform every 5-10. Add in unibody chassis that can wear/corrode out unlike a framed vehicle and us extremely difficult to repair/replace and the re0pacement parts costing an order of magnitude (or greater)more than it cost to produce.

[@BrightBlueJim]

It's easy to say things like this, and I happen to agree about the butt-ugliness without any good reason for modern styling, BUT, what you have to admit is that the stratigic spot-use of high-strength steel, and overall better mechanical designs make modern chassis far stronger and lighter than the crap that was being mass-produced in the 1960s. So no, your upgraded Eldorado was never going to do the trick, especially since it would have crumbled into drust by now.

[@BrightBlueJim]

@@harryhanz1690 I hope you will consider the weight figure, along with the weights of more modern designs in your calculations. All that said, I think I would much sooner convert a VW microbus. It was a minivan MADE to run with a small engine.

[@AvB.83]

@@BrightBlueJim Yeah, I think it would only kind of work if cars were build to the same standards as high end military airplanes :D According to Top Gear, that probably applies to older Toyota Hilux, but that's about it... of course, there are things like the Eagle Speedster, which apparently is a perfectly up-to-date Jaguar E-Type, only slight problem is that it costs about as much as a small village.

[@Thinkle911]

@@AvB.83 Do you really believe, the military sticks to old planes, because they are so good? It is just to expensive and annoying to replace them, so rebuilding them and accpeting their flaws and inabilities is easier. You could not properly pay fo a car, that was built to last forever and on the other hand, there is such thing as research and developement. Despite polemic believe car makers keep advancing the cars and drive trains and crash structures get better and better. I don't want to have a 50 year old piece of crap, that rides like a donkey. It is cheaper and better to buy a new car every twenty years then to buy a car once in your lifetime and keep retrofitting it with new engines, gearboxes and so on, because you also have to pay for that.

[@starbomber]

14:56 It's a little insane to me that they never used this thing in Afghanistan, whereas the B-52 flew plenty of combat missions in Vietnam.

[@petunized]

They have long ago lost ability to drop bombs, and can only use cruise missiles. Maybe will be aded back in next modernization. At least Tu-160 is getting it.

[@bodamian_bg]

By the way, an Austrian jet engineer Ferdinand Brandner led the team that developed the power plant (those emblematic double propeller four engines) for that beast of a plane. Upon finishing the project, he went to Egypt to participate in the development of their own jet fighter, alongside Willi Messerschmitt. P.S. meanwhile Kurt Tank- the genius behind the FW 190 works in India chasing pretty much the same goal.. LEGENDS!

[@JonathanHStone]

Tank first went to Argentina where his TA 183 became the basis for Argentina's homegrown jet fighter, the FMA Pulqui II

[@bodamian_bg]

@@JonathanHStone , as we all know, Argentina was the main after war destination. So, quite plausible.. *:)

[@WasabiSniffer]

It’s always fun seeing news of their flights near Alaskan air space. I imagine the pilots bantering over the radio like old friends. Dropping Cold War projects again. Because something something fulda gap The A10. Bradley IFV.

[@duanepierson4375]

I'd love to see a montage of the Bear being escorted by all the jets through the years, from the F-84 to the F-35. Quite the history.

[@victorzvyagintsev1325]

One minor correction, the Bears still flying are Tu-95MS varients, all of which were made in the 80-90s. They are not exactly "old" when it comes to such bombers. So its no surprise that they will be flying at least till 2040.

[@militavia-air-defense-aircraft]

This channel mostly inaccurate in most of military related topic. Sadly.

[@Kirovets7011]

...."with it's four propellers"...... No Simon, Eight propellers!!

[@jessicalypso8839]

You should do a Sideprojects about some of the largest excavation machines! You could include "Big Muskie", the largest walking dragline ever made, "The Silver Spade", an enormous dipper shovel, & the Bagger series of bucketwheel excavators! They are some FASCINATING pieces of equipment!

[@topiahead]

Would you consider talking about the Marina Bay Sands (MBS) , one of the icons of Singapore. A boat on top of 3 skyscrapers.

[@FryingTiger]

Tail gunner was in the tail, not the forward compartment. Rear observer/photographers were also carried in the rear compartment with the side blisters.

[@indyracingnut]

Simon's transition from beardless boy wonder to heavily-bearded KZbin LEGEND should be a MegaProjects topic.

[@evilcat7698]

Can you do the KA-50/52?

[@BrightBlueJim]

Not bloody likely - the B-50 was the red-headed stepchild of the USAF and the B-29. It's a plane nobody loved, because it was mainly intended to fix the problems with the B-29, but was already obsolete when introduced, since by then it was widely believed that turbojet engines were the One True Future. In fact, designating it the B-50 was a ruse intended to convince Congress that it was a whole new airplane. Both the KC-97 and KB-50 tankers were developed from variants of the B-29, and both eventually had to have J-47 turbojet engines fitted in addition to their piston engines, to give them the ability to do refueling runs fast enough that the fighters they were trying do refuel wouldn't be dangerously close to stalling out. The B-50 never had a chance as a bomber, and in its tanker role was cheerfully replaced by the KC-135, when that became available.

[@evilcat7698]

@@BrightBlueJim I meant the russian helicopter

[@BrightBlueJim]

@@evilcat7698 Well, never mind, then!

[@rydplrs71]

The TU-95 is almost impressive until you look at the b-52 released the same year, and still delivering useful service

[@atomicskull6405]

Lots of things are though, the C-130 and CH-47 are not only over 50 years old but they're also still building new ones.

[@druk1796]

I mean either way you’re getting over 20000 kg of bombs dropped on your city

[@BrightBlueJim]

The US and USSR have always had slightly different requirements. The B-52 could not have worked without aerial refueling, which the US already had a lot of experience with. The Soviet answer was to build planes with longer range without refueling, which brought about the Tu-95. Neither country would have been happy with the other's flagship bomber. The Tu-95 is aerial refuelable, but this was not a technology that its original design depended on, with its design range of 8000km.

[@dodoubleg2356]

I'm from the U.S. but I gotta give credit where it's due...Whether it's bombers, tanks, missiles, nukes, etc...those Russian's sure know how to build 'em big, loud, fast & INCREDIBLY IMPRESSIVE, even by today's standards.

[@pavelkobrin2997]

Tu-95MSM, B-52H, B-36 - these are just monuments to the engineering genius of the post-war generation of American and Russian aircraft engineers. Waiting for a video about the B-36. Thanks Simon.

[@TheJadeJester]

At least you didn’t mention how the Bear was a snooper for hunting CAGs in the Atlantic.

[@philipibaugh2925]

Her beauty is iconic and timeless in my opinion. She's way before my time but still was taken by her beauty. I also am aware of her importance and can't help but be saddened by how she was treated when trying to pursue other careers.

[@fredsmith2277]

HOW TO DEFEAT KZbin ADS. if you click on the reverse or forward buttons on the top left corner, you can skip ads, by clicking reverse then forward, the original video clip comes back without the ad. if the forward or reverse is blank, click on another video clip on the right, then click reverse arrow top left and the original video clip comes back to the same point you left off at, without having to watch thoser annoying ads

[@moors710]

As a designer of stealth military aircraft we never allowed the blade tips of propeller aircraft or helicopters to exceed the speed of sound. There are two reasons for this;1. Exceeding the speed of sound generates a sonic boom and makes aircraft easily detectable because of the noise, 2. the energy that cavitation of the air(the generation of a sonic boom) significantly increases fuel consumption.

[@jonhare392]

@2:26 is a shot of the Regulus Cruise Missile. It was the first nuclear missile that could be launched from a ship or specially equipped submarine. It didn’t have its own navigation control system, a jet would fly next to it controlling the Regulus until it got close to the target then the jet would point and fly as fast as he could go before the blast happened. I would love to see a full break down of the Regulus and her successor the Regulus II.

[@alancranford3398]

The TU-95 was what the B-52 almost was. Originally the B-52 was powered by turboprop engines--and that may have made the B-60 the long-range bomber of the USAF.

[@rodrigonogueiramota4433]

anybody interested in Russian Aviation should definitely visit Monino, it´s a great place and people there are very dedicated. I went there in 2019 and will return for sure

[@yourmom705]

Where is that

[@rodrigonogueiramota4433]

@@yourmom705 Russian Air Force Museum in Monino, near Moscow

[@PaulMcElligott]

Funny (and possibly apocryphal) story about the Tu-4. When the Soviets were reverse-engineering the B-29, they had instructions from the top to copy the American plane as exactly as possible. When Uncle Joe Stalin gives you an order, you interpret it literally, just to be safe. One of the B-29s, the one torn down so they could copy the parts, supposedly had a bullet hole in the instrument panel and, as a result, every single Tu-4 made had a completely unnecessary hole in the exact same spot.

[@NickieFireUp]

Love it! Thank you for your hard work Simon!

[@67tomcat]

Love the picture of the 3 VF-143 F-14's escorting the TU-95 @ 8:37.

[@stephenkuhnle1755]

You should do the Seattle Alaskan Way tunneling project with the largest tunneling machine ever made. It had a whole bunch of problems it would fill an episode

[@christainmarks106]

Simon and his team that help put these productions together are simply amazing 💪🏾… He gets paid i’m sure a ton of money to teach history.…. Simon & Mark Felton are my idols #DreamJob

[@loganwirth4146]

Simon is like Morgan freedman he's got that voice that you hear it and you're like he should never not be talking and the beard to match

[@guy_autordie]

The Tu-95 has the same level of "nah, we keep it, it's fiiiine" as the B-52 and the A-10.

[@bodamian_bg]

Yeah..nah..yeah.. TRUTH.

[@Kadeo-ms6qw]

Except the A-10 is constantly being questioned by the Air Force brass.

[@guy_autordie]

@@Kadeo-ms6qw And every time the basic commander show the facts, like the meme with will smith.

[@militavia-air-defense-aircraft]

In fact the A-10 is anything but "it's fine". The USAF wanted to retire ever since the end of Cold War. Except COIN environment the A-10C today is close to being useless. Here is a long video about the legend of the plane. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rJfOgmOlZ66SbJI

[@69waveydavey]

Canberra, still flown by NASA, modified B57s for high altitude recon etc.

[@24934637]

Quite an incredible plane despite the fact that it was specifically designed to kill ME seeing as I was brought up in an era when Soviet Russia was THE enemy along with the IRA. Amazing to think that this piece of propeller driven antiquity has been intercepted by everything from Meteors jets right up to the Typhoon. Never seen one in real life, but if it was in the air, there is a good chance that I'd hear it before I could see it! The Bear fills a gap that the RAF never filled, a 4 engine heavy bomber with swept wings. The last 4 engine heavy piston engine plane bomber that the RAF had (For land based targets) was the Lincoln, which didn't have swept wings, or the Shackleton (for sea based targets), interestingly both of which can trace their ancestry back to the Avro Manchester, and neither of which had swept wings. The Americans had the Convair B-36 Peacemaker which I suppose could be comparable and that was retired in 1959! As well as living forever, it's quite an aesthetically pleasing chunk of aluminium too.

[@timmotel5804]

Update: Russia, by any name is still the enemy, and always has been.

[@ross.venner]

The Istanbul to Bagdad Railway would make a tremendous Mega Project. Heroic engineering, adding to the tensions leading to WW1, spies, and prisoners of war labouring on a death railway, before The Death Railway (Burma to Thailand). Finally, add a cameo appearance by James Bond at the magnificent Varda Viaduct.

[@SimonAmazingClarke]

I joined the RAF 40 years ago and they were the main threat back then.

[@Sacto1654]

One thing I'm surprised the Russians didn't do was upgrade the propellers on the Tu-95 with two six-bladed contra-rotating propeller "spinners" with composite material blades. That would have reduced the radar signature and also reduced the fuel consumption, since six-bladed propellers could spin quite a bit slower.

[@nikolairubinskii6450]

Why bother? It's not like Russian defence ministry has lots of cash to spare.

[@philliplopez8745]

I wonder just how many different types of aircraft have flown intercepts on the bear . Must be a long list .

[@vxxed8668]

6:04 kuznets means "cricket" and I was puzzling about why Trey named such powerful engines that...until you said that submarines can hear it.

[@plunder1956]

Depending on how you define things, there are 4 pairs of counter-rotating props. So effectively 8 propellers. Since THE.USAAF plan to keep the B52 in service until about 2050 (almost a century, which is almost bizarre) . Will TU95 last as long?

[@jmace5964]

Contra-rotating is the correct way to say it

[@atomicskull6405]

Why is it bizzare? If we designed a clean sheet "bomb truck" to replace the B-52 it'd just come out looking a lot like the B-52 anyway. There are lots of examples of this the C-130 and CH-47 for example (those two are actually still being made and the next batch of CH-47s are due to be built in 2025). Sometimes they just get an aircraft right so there's no need to completely replace it and periodically updating it is the more logical option.

[@BrightBlueJim]

@@atomicskull6405 A major factor in how long an aircraft design lives, is how long it remains in production. At this point there are no new B-52s being built, but F-16 fighters are still being built, so even though the F-16 was introduced in 1978, you can buy brand-new ones today. Trying to build new B-52s would be a major challenge, since both the fixtures for building the airframe and a large number of its component parts are long-gone. Therefore it is rare for a plane that has gone out of production to be brought back - it is usually more practical to replace it with a new design, using more up-to-date materials, methods, and components. The last B-52 airframes were built in 1962, and the only think keeping them flyable is that the USAF is careful not to put too many flights on each one, every year. In answer to "why don't we just build some new B-52s?", the answer has always been something like, "yeah, a B-52, but supersonic", or "yeah, a B-52, but with stealth". Heck, we can't even build new A-10s today.

[@atomicskull6405]

@@BrightBlueJim That's why the CH-46 Sea Knight was (supposed to be) replaced while the CH-47 continues to be built. The CH-46 production line was shut down in the 70's while the CH-47 production line is still active because the CH-47 has many customers all over the world while the CH-46 was never as widely used and had fewer customers. But they drank the "tiltrotors are the future and can do anything a helicopter can!" kool-aid. In fact they can't and they've had to keep the CH-46 in limited service because of that. The V-22 was not able to fully take over for the CH-46 and now they are kind of stuck. All I can see them doing is either acquiring a smaller version of the CH-47 or acquiring a brand new tandem helicopter, maybe something based on the Boeing model 360.

[@atomicskull6405]

@@BrightBlueJim That's what's hamstrung the USMC with the CH-46, as it turns out the V-22 really can't totally replace it and they've had to keep the phrogs in service past their expected retirement. What they should do is look into the feasibility of a smaller CH-47, or maybe something based on the Boeing Model 360.

[@recnepsgnitnarb6530]

The Tu-95 is a direct descendant of the Boeing B-29.

[@JJadx]

would love a video on the merkava tank!

[@JJadx]

it's a israeli tank so expect a lot of comments and other sweet interactions for the algorithm.

[@RC41591Shadow]

I am perfectly happy living in my "tediously dull landscape."

[@orneryokinawan4529]

Im from Japan living in such a place in the US. As room and space comes at a premium back home.

[@LaDeXi]

In Finland Tupolevs are jokingly called Putolev. Finnish word for dropping being putoaminen. This because of so many news of Tupolevs crashing.

[@themadmoderator8465]

and the only reason they intercept them is to give experience break boredom of fighter crews

[@Domsenik22]

14:37 the car comming from the right had such bad timing if he would have been just 30 seconds late....

[@spacepeanut8993]

The Lockheed P-3 Orion would make for an excellent video!

[@shadetreemech290]

Yeah, I agree.

[@oldbutbold]

The Tu-95 with its turboprops that can be heard by submerged submarines and B-52 with its massive wingspan are such long-lived icons.

[@Dunois36]

Good video, some topics ideas for future videos: Baikal Amur Mainline Building of Norilsk Itapu Dam Three Gorges Dam Maginot Line French Nuclear Power plan of the 1970s London Bridge station rebuilding

[@Josh93B93]

Ahh the BEAR, one of my all time favs

[@a2hotz]

How about a video about that hypersonic rocket sled thing? I'm forgetting the name

[@Redgolf2]

Excellent video Simon

[@zopEnglandzip]

It's got 8 props Simon

[@semaj_5022]

Honestly I love this plane. It looks so cool to me. Intimidating and badass in a way.

[@grandadmiralthrawn6998]

Easily my favourite plane!

[@philagethechef]

How bout a video on the Bears early rival the b36 peacemaker

[@dontfukwiththissenator7919]

I always thought it looked very "steampunk" and archaic, but then again, so does the B-52. Both very well designed airframes that will outlast some of us.

[@nsweeten1]

Aurora TR3B.......?The black triangles! Get Danny on it!

[@patrickols]

It’s incredible to think that the TU-95 and the B52 who both came around in the early 50’s will still be flying while the original crews of these planes will have been long dead.

[@andrewmagdaleno5417]

Nice work Simon and team.

[@FelixIsMyName]

Simon, could you please do one on the English Electric Lightening?

[@Duececoupe]

Megaprojects: Repainting the house.... I'd watch it with a pizza and beer and still after the thinking, wow....who knew, how very interesting! 😳😲🤨🤔

[@deven6518]

They say it only has a payload of 35000lbs but after many modernisations, who knows. That payload limitation is down to internal space though. It might not look it but the fuselage is quite slim and alot of fuel tanks

[@mitri5389]

racks are used.

[@thebossman9176]

I was waiting for this video, well done Simon!

[@rupe82]

One these has just been heard flying over Mazyr towards Ukraine.

[@Paul29Esx]

One of your best I think

[@davy1458]

ID like to see a video on the evolution of your beard.

[@TheEvilCommenter]

Good video 👍

[@vinba8234]

Also the TU-142M which was the maritime version of the Tu-95

[@christopherharper9932]

Built a model of the Bear (NATO reporting name) and a model of a MiG-21 Fishbed back in 88, when I was in Air Force JROTC. One of our instructors flew F-105s in Vietnam. Cool dude.

[@ressljs]

Nebraska, "Not that you'd want to bomb one of America's most tedious landscapes." Actually, that would have been the Soviet's #1 target. The headquarters of Strategic Air Command, essentially the brains of America's nuclear forces, was in Nebraska.

[@Asgar1205]

Damn Simon, your beard is a Megaproject... Looking good!

[@danneedsabeer]

As a proud Nebraskan, 8:45 was entirely unnecessary, accurate, but unnecessary good sir

[@_Ali.]

KZbin will soon be sponsored by MegaProjects, SideProjects and Beard Blaze at this rate.

[@henrypena2547]

I just Bought a Bear model can't wait to start building

[@kxuydhj]

"it was never called upon in a way that it was designed for" aged like fine milk.

[@RichardHubbuck]

Came to research the aircraft after a video on Reddit alludes to this aircraft flying over eastern Ukraine.

[@greekgawd8190]

I love this plane I like the rotating propellers

[@sparkyfromel]

The TU-95 has an enemy brother , the B-52 , somewhat slightly younger , it has a far more active deployment in combat as late as 2018 in Syria

[@owenshebbeare2999]

The B-52 is not really younger, in terms of design, and the ones in service are 60 years old, whereas the Tu-95's in service were built in the 80's and 90's.

[@Tu-95]

I appreciate the biography.

[@rydplrs71]

5:45, the video is in reverse, the propellers are pushing not pulling.

[@thomasstuart2936]

It just looks so determined to get the job done.

[@Tirana44]

Great video. I’m a great fan of both the Tu16 Badger, and it’s mighty sibling, the Bear.

[@militavia-air-defense-aircraft]

The existing Tu-95/142 planes which are serving today are not 70 years old. They are much later produced. The '50s planes retired long time ago.

[@CounterfeitDuck]

"My grandfather was an F-4 pilot, he used to intercept Tu-95. My father piloted F-15. He intercepted numerous Tu-95. Now I am taking my F-22 up to the air to intercept Tu-95." That was a joke.

[@orneryokinawan4529]

There's cool pictures of this next to the B-52s at Barksdale airforce base.

[@kylietravers3466]

The bear is the last current propeller bomber still in service until at least 2040

[@whatever8282828]

Hey, SAC HQ at Omaha is probably the only cool part of Nebraska -there is even an Apple store in the town! (only one in the state)

[@javiermoya2801]

I am not sure if it is already mentioned in the litany of comments, but also the American turboprop monster the B36 (billion dollar blunder) as it was also known.

[@brett4264]

They come into our Alaskan airspace fairly often. They and our fighter pilot's exchange waves before they return out of our airspace.