Tu-95 Why this Tupolev Nuclear Bomber from the 1950s is still in Service today?

#planes #cruisemissle #tu95 #strategicbomber
This is the Tupolev Tu-95 which was designed as a Tactical Nuclear bomber,
and have been in service for the last 70 years.
Nato reporting name Bear.
The main question is why is this Soviet era Aircraft still in used today.
The Tu-95, has continued to operate in the Russian Air Force, part of the reason for this longevity, was its suitability range and fuel efficiency.
It is not that old compared to the American counterpart, the B-52 , as it was introduced on February 1952.
While the Tupolev TU-95, first flight was in the year 1955.
Their mission is more of a their heavy payload and long range
Both aircraft are large, long range platforms and have proven reliable and adaptable to a variety of roles, from strategic bombing, interdiction, maritime patrol, missile carrier, and even airborne ballistic missile launch platforms !
Find us on Facebook
/ aitelly-1089. .
Support us in Buy Me a Coffee
www.buymeacoff...
Instagram
/ aitelly3d
Twitter
/ aitelly3d
We make it on Blender
Download it is free and Safe
www.blender.or...
Peace Out
As a Small Channel We encourage you sharing our Videos ,
But Kindly be advised that any unofficial translations or editing of our work in any medium will be considered a breach of our intellectual property rights.
Apologies for the Legal Language, This happens because we had faced a lot of Duplicates Contents through Experiences ;)
This has been a result of Big Channels Duplicating our Contents Ripping our original hard work which we have created from Scratch from Modeling to Rigging to Animation to Rendering.So we had to involved Lawyers.

[@Aitelly]

Correction and notes from Viewers Comments: "Laminat 09" and "Daniial Syed • 7 лет назад" 2:45 that navigator is not supposed to be there, it's radar emplacement. Navigator would sit there only on the oldest version which had glass nose "J @user-rj7bc8yd6r" The Tu-95 is not a tactical but a strategic bomber. "Nikolay Grigoryev" 1:10 NATO gave the name Bear because it starts with a B. All soviet bombers were designated with words starting with the letter B... "fiery justin" Love the animation detail, but minor correction;the Tupolev T-95 uses a turboprop engine, not a turboshaft as stated in this video. Thanks for the great work nonetheless. We take resposponsibility for the goof ups Glad to learn from the audience. Thanks

[@stonesore4583]

And right now russians use this weapon to kill civilians in Ukraine. Just for fun.

[@Aitelly]

@Fibosssdvc Inc

[@JimmySaulGoodmanMcGill1960]

@@stonesore4583 it's very fun actually 😊

[@НиколайКузин-в7о]

Щщззддддддджлж0

[@mauribonada2425]

@@Aitelly other issue that must be corrected is the coma [ , ] instead of point [ . ] in the international sistem or metric sistem.

[@StrayCatOrwell]

“Why is it still in service?” Same reason the B-52 is; it works and performs the mission. Nothing else to be said.

[@Walkercolt1]

It doesn't perform its mission GREAT, but it does about as well as it did when I was in the USAF in 1974. The Tu-95 IS NOT a B-52 mission strategic bomber. It's more analogous to the B-47 TACTICAL nuke bomber, BUT it flies LOW and SLOW. The Russians don't have what anyone would call "cutting edge" electronics aboard the BEAR. Many weapons systems are STILL vacuum-tube based. Different mind-set. I can't say "wrong" just different.

[@tokumyra]

@@Walkercolt1 and yes, you served at a time when every American soldier was told about bad Russians, and therefore you should believe about the effectiveness of our aircraft. B-52 did not help much in the victory Vietnam

[@asommer518]

@@tokumyra Well given the Russian military's' poor showing in Ukraine with poorly maintained equipment, poorly trained men and most certainly poorly motivated, I wouldn't be surprised if many TU-95s fail to deploy when ordered to do so. Given the fact Russia's entire economy is smaller the the State of New York (one of 50 states in U.S.) that is not much budget to field a world class Airforce. Of course the cruise missiles they carry are also suspect in their maintenance.

[@haysnairte4]

@@asommer518 Oh yeah the irony, when so many Americans were literally homeless, but their Military Equipment as well as their Warmonger mentality were kept on a State of the Art condition... FYI USA is controlling Grasberg Gold Mine in Indonesia, as well as so many Oil fields it obtained from the Aggression all over the world, while Russia? The only story you heard would be when they fight Afghanistan's fighter on a land of no oil

[@MrAvant123]

The B52 is old but the TU-95 is archaic and frankly no longer relevant really...

[@tsepheletseka5115]

So basically the Tu-95 Bear is Russia's version of the B-52. It's also the fastest turboprop powered aircraft in the world and can fly faster than most subsonic jet planes. I believe it's actually faster than the B-52.

[@jerromedrakejr9332]

Or... B-52 is USA's version of Tu-95.

[@F.O.U.N.D.E.R]

@@jerromedrakejr9332 exactly comrade

[@antoniolozic1517]

@@F.O.U.N.D.E.R no. The b52 came into production 4 years before the tu95

[@manwell235]

Tu-95 is also one of the loudest aircraft in service today bcos the tip of the propellers constantly creating sonic booms

[@thomasmelvin1333]

B52 top speed 650mph, T95 575mph. B52 can carry 20 nuclear cruise missiles 12 in pylon configuration and 8 in rotary launcher…. It appears the T95 can only carry 16. The buff (B52) is a monster!

[@INFILTRATOR2008]

The Tu-95 is not a tactical but a strategic bomber

[@barrel1885]

It depends on whether the Tu-95 carries nuclear-armed or conventional missiles

[@INFILTRATOR2008]

@@barrel1885 READ the definition of strategic aviation before starting a dispute A strategic bomber is a medium- to long-range penetration bomber aircraft designed to drop large amounts of air-to-ground weaponry onto a distant target for the purposes of debilitating the enemy's capacity to wage war. Unlike tactical bombers, "penetrators", fighter-bombers, and attack aircraft, which are used in air interdiction operations to attack enemy combatants and military equipment, strategic bombers are designed to fly into enemy territory to destroy strategic targets (e.g., infrastructure, logistics, military installations, factories, etc.). In addition to strategic bombing, strategic bombers can be used for tactical missions. There are currently only three countries that operate strategic bombers: the United States, Russia and China.

[@barrel1885]

@@INFILTRATOR2008 But the Su 24 tactical supersonic bomber is capable of carrying cruise missiles. It is quite capable of destroying infrastructure and flying into enemy territory. What is a Su 24?

[@INFILTRATOR2008]

@@barrel1885 you yourself wrote "tactical SU-24" :), and if you attach a nuclear bomb to it, will it become strategic? :) I know that there are people who, even if they are mistaken, will stand by their point of view to the end, even if the whole world thinks otherwise :) You sound like just such a person. You have been given the definition of strategic aviation from the encyclopedia. You decided to continue the argument anyway with the "IF" argument

[@foldedchicken4634]

@@barrel1885 conventional missiles can also be used for strategic purposes, like you see in ukraine

[@cherrypoptart2001]

In the Vietnam war the US lost a handful of B-52s because they were used as conventional carpet bombers. Now after all these decades the B-52 has been upgraded heavily with modernize technology and still has a place in the modern battlefield, so does the bear. Their roles in Ukraine are honestly how it should properly be used, utilize their long operational range and unload their cruise missiles from far out of the range of enemy jets and SAMs.

[@CreamCobblerFiend]

Youre right, their odds of survival are unfavorable in enemy airspace. The thing is that any place out of range of SAMs would essentially have to be across the Russian boarder where you may as well just launch the missiles conventionally

[@nickkorkodylas5005]

_>Their roles in Ukraine are honestly how it should properly be used_ Agreed. Fuck hohols in specific! xD

[@dalentoews3418]

Same missile ground launched will have less range than air launched. Also the missiles can than be stored way back from the front line cause you can stack the range of the missiles and bomber.

[@Ralfi_PoELA]

Our B-52's got deployed to London. You're incorrectly stating that B 52's are in Ukraine they are not.

[@frjedoru4369]

I think if there is a war with NATO, the bfstro strikers will destroy it and heavy bombers like it

[@Romir0s]

"that were built in 1950s" That's a little misleading. Russia uses Tu-95MS, which were in production since 1979. So, their airframes are not that insanely old as it seems. Basically, the oldest Tu-95 in service is younger than the newest B-52.

[@Aitelly]

No they counted it from the day they Took the First Flight. A lot of Variants here and there so this is a grey Area.

[@ilijaspasojevic7031]

The last copies of the TU-95 (WHICH WERE FAR MORE MODERN THAN THE VARIANTS WHICH WERE LEAVING THE FACTORIES IN THE 1950s, 1960s, etc.) were produced until 1993! And those only 30-year-old specimens underwent modernization about 10 years ago. So only the airframe of this plane looks vintage, everything else in this plane is relatively new..The Aerospace Forces of the Russian Federation (in Russia, the Aviation and Space Forces are one branch of the military) use only TU-95s from the latest series. The older ones have been retired.

[@sergeireischel1610]

The Tu-95 really took its first flight in 1956. However, it was used as a base for making a Tu-142 maritime recon and ASW plane (half of the fuselage was remade, fyi), wich first flew in 1968 and entered service in 1972 already as a Tu-142M, an upgraded variant. And later that Tu-142M was again used as a base for making a Tu-95MS in early eighties. The ones that're still in service were heavily upgraded with new engines, propellers, radar, control, navigation, armament and electronic countermeasures systems in mid 2010-s. So, this plane is a 2015's mod of a thirty - thirty-five year old base and it's being used as a highly mobile cruise missle launching platform wich is not nearly obsolete (That said, Tu-95 nuclear BOMВER is out of service for a long time actually - and no, @aitelly, it's not a grey zone)

[@vasopel]

B52 first (prototype) flight 1952 B52 three pre-production models B52A made in 1954 (none of those served) B52 production of thirteen B52B in 1955 (first model to serve) B52H (that serve today) made from1961 to 1963 Tu95 first (prototype) flight 1952 Tu95 30 serial aircraft were built*, From 1954 to 1957, and went active in early 1956 *of which one was for statistical tests (serial number 5800303). Tu95MS (that serve today) six converted from Tu-142M in 1979 at Factory "No. 86" and serial production of 34 Tu-95MS made in 1981-1983 at factory "No. 18"

[@bittemeinrammstein]

@@Aitelly All Tu-95 ins service is MS variant which means airframes from 1984 and beyond. Idiot.

[@maxprivate3805]

Major props to the original designers.

[@Aitelly]

Please Subscribe

[@garryb374]

It is the only propeller driven aircraft that actually requires a swept wing and remains the worlds fastest propeller driven aircraft. As already mentioned the design has been upgraded in the 1970s with the naval version called Tu-142, which is often called a Bear bomber, but the Bear has been carrying cruise missiles since the late 1970s and is not able to carry bombs. The Tu-95MS16 can actually carry 16 cruise missiles, if they are all the smaller Kh-55SM type, with 5 weapons on two pylons under each wing for 10 missiles externally and 6 more internally. The newer Kh-101 and Kh-102 have a flight range of 5,000km and are larger diameter (750mm) and are 7.4 metres long. The internal weapon bay of the Blackjack is 11 metres long and so they fit easily, but the internal weapon bay on the Bear is designed for the 6m long Kh-55SM so the Kh-101/102 don't fit. The twin barrel 23mm cannon each fire at about 3,500 rpm so with two guns that is about 7,000 rpm, which is better than Phalanx. Its most effective round however is probably the round with chaff and flare dipoles... a half second burst can create a cloud of 50 flares and chaff elements to one side or another of the aircraft creating an instant complex pattern to distract incoming enemy missiles.

[@tomosa6880]

Still, prey for a modern day fast air jet. Surface to air missiles, and Ukrainian air defence. And knowing russian maintenance up keep, logistics etc, I bet 1 in 3 actually work. Drones and missiles are the future. Not upgraded WW2 style bombers with propellers.

[@garryb374]

@@tomosa6880 The Bears are strategic cruise missile carriers, the Russians look after them just fine. But air defence equipment is useless against them because they carry cruise missiles with a minimum range of 3,000km for the small ones they carry internally. The externally carried ones have a range of 5,000km. When delivering goods to the good old US of A it will take them a bare minimum of about 6 hours to get to their launch positions so anything that might shoot them down has already been nuked by ICBMs and SLBMs launched and exploded on target 5 hours earlier.

[@babayagacodswallop1756]

@@tomosa6880 tell me u just spam random illogical comment without any knowledge.

[@haysnairte4]

@@babayagacodswallop1756 Indeed, he talks about future, unbeknownst to him, the future won't be able to adopt Oil fueled jets as the oil would one day depleted, whilst propeller could adopt the solar powered engine to remain relevant. USA has been burning funds since WW II to become a terror nation, forcing their believe to other countries while the American suffer expensive healthcare and homeless problems

[@АндрейЗорин-е7г]

@@tomosa6880 от куда вы знаете о русском техническом обслуживание? У вас предвзятое отношение - русское, значит плохое. А как же русские эксплуатируют другой самолет Ту-160?

[@timothy1949]

underrated channel, no BS, just facts and details.

[@Aitelly]

Thanks 🙏

[@vova_ermak]

This is not a bomber, this is a strategic missile carrier.

[@user-ww4od4jl1f]

@vovaermak3392 *WRONG too! This is a "strategic " BUNCH OF GARBAGE.*

[@Тутанхамон-х6к]

Разрабатывался этот самолет, как бомбардировщик и был им, пртом стал ракетоносцем.

[@ahmadsantoso9712]

This is a pipe with wings and engines that can carry bombs or missiles.

[@Darkosa1234]

Fantastic presentation! Keep it up guys! As for this aircraft, it's passenger version (TU-114) could be a great alternative to planes with turbojet engines if not for the deafening noise of the engines 😬

[@Aitelly]

Yes. I really wonder how the Soviet manage to produce these Great Aircraft at a fraction of the cost inspite of the Cold War betweeen the US in the 1960s.

[@pmnichols10]

A bit noisy though.

[@samches3]

@@Aitelly well in USSR we had huge country where the major means of production and property were owned by the state. You don't to have money to build something, communist party just need to tell you what to built and it will be done soon or later. My grand dad flown one of these TU95 Bears. Cool plane, loud though :)

[@aadixum]

TU-114 was one of the safest Soviet passenger aircraft. The only other aircraft that equals it in number of fatal crashes (0) is the Il-96

[@fetusofetuso2122]

Same reason the B-52 is still in service. It excels in its role

[@omarb8655]

B52 dropped Nukes in over 15 accidents, B52 half of them were lost to accidents, Tu95 never had an accident.

[@aflyingcowboy31]

@@omarb8655 It is so weird some of the things people make up. The B52 never dropped a nuke by accident, and no half of the B52s were never lost to accidents. 744 B-52s were built, are you really gonna sit there and say 372 have been lost in accidents? "Tu95 never had an accident." Yet it has.

[@supramur]

​@@omarb8655 if we, russians, will accidentally drop a nuke, we'll never tell you. We're not so stupid to let the whole world laugh at us. So i am not so sure, that Tu95 never droped a nuke. Remember, after communism appeared to be failure in 1991, our new ideology is to fuck things up. Very frequently.

[@basila33]

@@aflyingcowboy31 Just because you don't know something doesn't mean it didn't happen. don't be an idiot. 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash - huge contamination of Greeland ice shield, one warhead still not found. 1966 Palomares B-52 crash - three warhead where dropped on ground, one at sea. Two warhead were destroyed, heavy contamination of Spanish soil. 1958 Tybee Island mid-air collision - one warhead still somewhere under water near Savannah. "never dropped by accident", my ass! and now tell me about Tu-95 as i did. Go ahead, don't be shy.

[@marseldagistani1989]

@@aflyingcowboy31 Even if the TU95 had an accidental drop, the USSR would never report it as missing, or even record it

[@twogenders]

Tu-95 has a brutish crude look that I find pleasing to look at. Besides, it has turbo props in an era dominated by jet driven airplanes. How cool is that?!

[@mr.normalguy69]

AiTelly's production quality is getting better by the day.

[@Aitelly]

Thanks man

[@pkwithmeplease]

Its not its russian. There is nothing good quality from russia

[@mr.normalguy69]

@@pkwithmeplease The AK-47 wil disagree with you.

[@Toxic4262]

@@pkwithmeplease If so, why the West isn't attacking Russia yet? Because they would attack only weaker adversary. Facts .

[@fieryjustin]

Love the animation detail, but minor correction;the Tupolev T-95 uses a turboprop engine, not a turboshaft as stated in this video. Thanks for the great work nonetheless.

[@Aitelly]

Thanks for the feedback we really aprreciate constuctive ones

[@za_pravdu1943]

Their propeller are part of the engine, so yeah, it's turboprop

[@MisterSiga]

love the effort you guys put into your videos. keep it up :)

[@Aitelly]

Thanks for the Support.We really Appreciate this gesture. We will keep on pruducing better videos as we moved ahead.

[@islm3947]

Nice technology ahead of its time

[@tomokazu2235]

Love your efforts in your video without bias.

[@Aitelly]

Thanks 🙏👍

[@MH-df6zx]

They all start with little bias then it transforms, if it's an American/western behind the video everything Russia does is crap or a copyand everything US/west does is great sometimes very obvious sometimes subtle, if it's a Russian behind the video the west is scared from this or that weapon and the west has crap, so with time it becomes boring hopefully this one stays without bias or significant bias

[@alexanderlunacharsky96]

Oh please, the author said that the Su-57 is the "fifth or fourth generation" (4:46), although he should be well aware that it is a fifth-generation fighter. Yes, of course the author is not prejudiced, come on.

[@СтепанОсипов-г7н]

Я служил на аэродроме(обязательная служба) У нас были ту 142 , они очень похожи внешне на ту 95

[@LosFicosMusic]

Amazing work.. It’s mind blowing how the propellers work

[@jia_master7933]

They named him a bear because of the roar of his engines))), and he is strategic.

[@joaogomes9405]

Not really a shock, the B-52 is also still in service. These planes were designed for one job and do it perfectly well, so there's no need to replace them. The fly high, fast, far and carry lots of ordinance, no point in replacing them

[@AnilArya51]

Nice job AiTelly

[@Aitelly]

Thank You!

[@3sides2everystory]

Fantastic video, non biased, straight up engineering marvels without the 'other team' bull shit.. subscribed 👍

[@Aitelly]

Thanks 🙏👍🙏

[@TheMaehan]

nah its biased as HECK!

[@3sides2everystory]

@@TheMaehan please explain

[@kingdomgateway7677]

Kh-101 has a range of 5500km.

[@dash-movies2175]

You are really giving efforts on this videos . Love your content keep doing it. 💙

[@Aitelly]

Thank you

[@topg_napoleon5203]

Great video 🎉 looking forward for more 🔥

[@Aitelly]

Will surely do.

[@baronserhio6157]

B-52: first flight af 1050s, but still good to be at service TU-95: broooo

[@ПолеВой-и8л]

СССР слава!!! Союзу СоветскихСоциалистических Республик!!!!!

[@deltacharlieromeo8252]

For sure, the Tu-95 will outlive the coming B21 Raider.

[@techietisdead]

So will the b 52, its really weird and they should not be compared

[@jerromedrakejr9332]

The B-21 will be a scam like the F-35 and will serve solely to fill the pockets of the military industrial elite... They no longer care at all if what they are producing is usable or even safe for the user, the American soldier, because it is enough invest in fierce marketing and bribe the easily corruptible generals, and then stuff the army with unusable shit...

[@Triggernlfrl]

They replace B21 after it has finished robbing taxpayers....

[@Shakeelkhan-qz3ob]

Your videos are very informative and narrator explanation is absolutely awesome

[@Aitelly]

Thank You🙃

[@Shakeelkhan-qz3ob]

@@Aitelly i hope you will make videos on mig 21 mig 19 hawker hunter and mig 23 mig 27 etc

[@akhtarnadeem621]

I like this bomber plane Tupolev TU-95 very much, it should stay in service more and upgrade as well.

[@hypocrisinity]

In case of war - it doesn’t matter how much noise they produce 😊

[@akhtarnadeem621]

This aircraft Tropulev TU95 does not produce any noise. Especially when it's at 30,000 feet.🙂

[@PTillA-kf7rq]

@@akhtarnadeem621How's it at out running jet interceptor fighters?

[@akhtarnadeem621]

@@PTillA-kf7rq This is not an Interceptor Fighter.

[@PTillA-kf7rq]

@@akhtarnadeem621 I know I said how good is it at escaping from them?

[@jeffwindrim975]

The TI-95 is still in use and modernized for the same reasons the B-52 is still in use maybe when both countries retire these planes there won’t be a need for a long range bomber but I do t see that happening.

[@ClaudeMagicbox]

Same speed and ceiling as the B-52, more payload, twice the range and half the cost (both operational and maintenance) You do the math.

[@jarekw1224]

Why B52 is still in service ?

[@jerromedrakejr9332]

That question would be better suited to the Boeing B-52... all examples of that plane were produced until 1962 of the last century. The Tu-95, like the B-52, was designed in the 50s of the last century, but the examples now in the Russian Air Force were produced in the late 80s and early 90s of the last century, so they are not too old yet.

[@jerryjustice8803]

The B-52 was built-in the 1950's also. The latest versions were built some what LL after.

[@Aitelly]

We should do a video on that

[@ИгорьИсаков-з4р]

stupid and narrow-minded idiots from NATO countries will be interested to know that the Tu-95/142, which are in service in Russia, were built in the 1980s ... i.e. they are 30 years newer than the B-52 ...

[@Good_BorisAV]

_Будьте здоровы!_ 🇷🇺 _Очень интересно, спасибо!_

[@VK-dh6io]

You really produced good videos & explanation. Very well done!!! Keep it up!!! 👍👍👍👍👍

[@0bserver416]

US general calling his Russian counterpart: - Hey, man, when are you going to retire your Tu-95? Russian general: - When you retire your B-52, comrade. Both generals to their superiors: - We are not going to retire our bombers❗

[@Aitelly]

:) good one

[@richardwilliams1986]

Great, I'll put the savings toward F-22 spare parts.

[@АлексАлиев-ъ3г]

Я из России. I am from Russia. Двигатели на самолете очень шумные - самые шумные в мире, и дают сильную вибрацию. Это особенность винтовых двигателей. Поэтому пилоты на нем летают в шлемах. Когда обычный человек, не подготовленный пилот, летит несколько часов на ТУ- 95 у него может потом болеть голова.

[@somerandomaccount5783]

Crazy how this channel has almost 100k now

[@Aitelly]

Thankyou

[@Noblepilot_abrahamvwi_aeroplan]

The Tu-95 is a long range subsonic strategic bomber and not a tactical bomber.

[@Mancreativ01]

Every single video AItelly has always different dubber, fantastic

[@Aitelly]

🤫

[@АлексейМаксимов-ь3р]

Россия - Лучшая !

[@Wolf-rb4um]

Now we are waiting Tu-160

[@Aitelly]

Ok

[@Ggtg34]

Nice video. Thanks ❤️

[@Aitelly]

Thanks Rajesh

[@paprikar]

Thank you for such content ☺️ But can we have a metric system for weight too?

[@Aitelly]

Will try

[@mandaloriancrusader6699]

Think of it like this, they have Tu-160s that is more advanced in every single way but old bear is still just that good and upgraded there is no point in scrapping instead of upgrading. Also it's use as missile carriers is genius, anything can drop dumb bombs but how many kinzhals or other missiles Tu-95 can pack with it's range is why bear stays.

[@poleteli]

not sure if they are capable to launch Kinzhal because it needs to start with significant initial speed so that's why ultrafast but old Mig-31 or modern Su-57 are used as Kinzhal launchpads

[@mynamejeff4656]

@@poleteli i hear that the kinzal can only fire from mig-31 and tu-160 cuz they are fast

[@poleteli]

@@mynamejeff4656 yep, it has to be accelerated as much as possible to get highest speed and range. Su-57 is fast enough also. Similar missile "Circonium" can be fired from the ships, but gets less speed and range - 8-9M and 450-600 km only. Still awesome, though

[@mynamejeff4656]

@@poleteli its name zircon i think, really good tech

[@za_pravdu1943]

As long as it still usefull compared to its maintain cost, then no reason to decommisioning them

[@dashcammer4322]

I wonder if the TU-95 has a lower heat signature than the B-52 from a rear aspect.

[@armyboy0579]

For some fun contacts just remember the F-14 tomcat was created to intercept the TU-94 Bear in the 1970's. While America retired the tomcat in 2006 at the latest 2016 you have F-14's from the Islamic Republic Of Iran Air Force. Flying ESCORT for the very same bombers for Russian assistance in Syria.

[@Aitelly]

Great Informative Comment 👍

[@greggpennington966]

Why still in the air ? Because it's still a platform that flies ! It's available to carry and shoot missiles as well. And besides, 8 counter rotating propellers just makes it totally cool !

[@ljmorris6496]

It's like the B52 now, a missile truck. In other words an fighter squadron can" bomb out" an area using B52/Bear launched cruise missles or can be used HV targets with no air cover..

[@mr6johnclark]

The TU-95 is SO loud submarines with super sensitive hydrophones can actually hear it flying above it.

[@imadequate3376]

They still have the GSH-23 in them eh? The B52s ditched the rear guns in the 90s. Honestly like the B52 there's really no near future plans to replace it, we will be seeing these behemoths well into the 2040s

[@googleplex1589]

It also dropped the tsar bomb

[@POK1111111111]

We often have them take off and land, their sound is great. They are quite large up close.

[@vadymvv]

Did you hear "bavovna" at airfield? If not you will soon.

[@myedoxx]

@@vadymvv Hahaha, true, true...

[@doggoyellow1150]

@@vadymvv Why do you have to bring politics into everything

[@AP-cv7jz]

@@vadymvv soon(C) you can hear something each night

[@TOSStarTrek]

They could be heard miles away. They tips of the propellers broke the sound barrier 24/7 which is why most nations abanded contra-rotating propellers.

[@larryburrow6278]

For the same reasons the B52s are still in service.

[@balderlevonhard9547]

I made a model with double horizontal engines above the tail and they are mounted in the same mechanism that spins in the axis of the connection to control the yaw. Instead of four propellers in a pair of wings, it have two.

[@agronstafa5285]

Bombarduesi më i bukur në botë i të gjithë kohërave

[@Shakeelkhan-qz3ob]

Make video on mig 21, hawker hurricane, mig 17, mig 23 mig 29 etc

[@Aitelly]

Will Do

[@Shakeelkhan-qz3ob]

@@Aitelly thanks for reply

[@amedeocestini]

Will you produce a video on every missile used in the TU-95?

[@Aitelly]

Will do now that we alreday finished the 3d models

[@amedeocestini]

@@Aitelly it's fantastic!

[@finsrj]

Perfect as always.

[@duanepierson4375]

We would like to see a video splice of all the NATO aircraft from the F-84 to the F-35 escorting the Bear through out the years.

[@tancreddehauteville764]

The sound from those super-propellers must be absolutely deafening. It must be hell for the pilots.

[@EpicThe112]

Regarding the actual aeroplane itself the current version used by the Russian military was built in the 1980s there for the production went 1950s 1960s then restarted in the 1980s to make the current version

[@hungrysurfer9471]

This plane could be updated, the props and engines more power and much more range. Boeing updated the B52 engines and have much longer range and engine life.

[@GeneralGayJay]

Cheap and reliable that's why.

[@millugaming133]

Love your Videos🥰

[@Aitelly]

Thanks 🙏👍🙏

[@cabba6915]

When I was a boy and the Soviet Union still existed this wonderful plane was called the Tu 20.

[@riku3716]

If you need a big flying truck to drop stuff from the sky there isn't that much reason to replace the plane. You can switch engines and improve avionics etc. They are vulnerable if enemy aa/fighters are in range but that is what missiles and more expensive newer bombers are for. The only real reason to replace bomber like this is if you need larger or completely different plane or if the airframes just wear out to the point they can't be kept flying safely.

[@deaddoll1361]

Warfare has changed as shown by the way the Ukraine conflict is being waged. It'll be drones and missiles for the most part now, aircraft and ships are very expensive and too easily destroyed using much cheaper methods.

[@riku3716]

@@deaddoll1361 and how many of Russia's strategic bombers has Ukraine shot down easily while they've been sending missiles Ukraine's way?

[@Xilley1]

@@riku3716 1, a TU-22

[@AlexanderTch]

Lol. Simply because American B-52 which is older than Tu-95 is still in service. And USA has 1.5 times more B-52s than Russia has Tu-95. Though, western people do not know that USA's last B-52 of modification H was manufactured in 1962 and was never produced since then. While Russia uses the most modern modification Tu-95MS only and planes were produced in 80s and early 90s, so, it has modern avionics and other parts and it's modern plane and only looks a bit similar to Tu-95s of early modifications. It's very common when people from the West including video bloggers can't see situation in their own country why their brain is terribley darked by ant-Russian propaganda.

[@Aitelly]

:)

[@patrikhenriksson7731]

Thanks for the early christmas gift(:

[@Aitelly]

Merry Christams in Advance.

[@impermanence5277]

Talk about the Hypersonic’s nuclear warheads , Russias capabilities

[@Ahmed_Helmy_AH]

please add metric numbers to better understand 👍

[@Aitelly]

Metric ok will do that fpor Future Videos

[@corey8420]

Wish you guys would use Imperial measurements too.

[@Aitelly]

Will do

[@corey8420]

@@Aitelly Thank you so much!

[@newwarrior1581]

This KZbin Channel deserves to have 1 Million Subscribers ❤❤❤

[@sleepyrasta420]

Love the channel, good content.

[@Aitelly]

Thanks Man. We will always remain Humble.

[@henryks1199]

Zróbcie proszę napisy w języku Polski bo nie każdy zna tak dobrze język angielski - Dziękuje i pozdrawiam z Polski

[@user-fv8pi]

Go to the video CC setting, pick auto-translate function, and choose your language

[@valerysinitsine5949]

Why are you calling it a "tactical" bomber, when it is strategic?

[@mjoelnir1899]

The B52 is also still in use.

[@Elver_Galarga816]

True

[@Phil-D83]

Perfect to carry cruise missiles

[@strizhi6717]

This is well done ..no politics just facts. I smashed the like and sub button - well done :)

[@Aitelly]

Thanks for the kind words

[@reggarz]

can you discuss J 20 Mighty Dragon?

[@Aitelly]

For Sure currenlt Modeling it's exterion will finish the Interior in a coiple weeks. 2 weeks more for animation . Give us time we will deliver it.

[@SenorTucano]

They solved the aircraft’s excessive noise problem by putting it all on the outside.

[@bol1Spitfire]

Excellent vídeo! Thanks for the information, totally liked and subscribed too!

[@Aitelly]

Appreciate the gesture 🙌 Another video coming this week.

[@ivanstepanovic1327]

Probably the loudest plane ever built; level of noise surpasses jet engines... But, very fast for the type and highly fuel efficient. It was allegedly reported that Russians occasionally probe NATO/USA positions with them and that the F-22 squadron complained they spend more per flight hour than Tu-95. Not sure if it is true, but definitely plausible...

[@viktorbabay2905]

Классный бомбёр!

[@denbril5130]

Бобёр

[@angryakita3870]

Depending on the version, 16 missiles can be carried, using triple missile pylons on the inner two mounts (2+3+6+3+2)

[@PTillA-kf7rq]

Probability of those missiles hitting their intended target 60%

[@basila33]

@@PTillA-kf7rq that is nonsense. Kh-55 has range of 2500 km and accuracy 6-10 meters and Kh-101 has the same accuracy but range up to 5500 km. these are cruise missiles, with digital maps, flight altitude 70-100 meters, GPS/GLONASS guidance and independent inertial, IR and EM targeting. where did you get that 60%? from your head?

[@PTillA-kf7rq]

@@basila33 What Guidance systems? Sanctions have decimated advanced electronics in the Russian mod, as for 60%? Estimates based on accuracy of hitting an actual military target based on data from the ISW on missile strikes. Really 60% was just too generous of me, it's more like 10%. Thank you for callin me out on this skippy, Quite the favor you did me. All be it though, I think I heard the original estimate on a news channel or something, but can't recall as that report was made in October or November of 2022 and I first saw it in review in January I think, Yup it's only gotten worse since then though. Seriously, If those things are as accurate as you would like me to believe how come it took, A year and a half to hit one actual factory just barely? Better yet how did Zelensky survive so long without pat AA batteries being in Ukraine sooner?

[@basila33]

@@PTillA-kf7rq dude. first of all learn the actual meaning of word "decimation" - it comes from Rome Empire. this is kind of punishment in which 1/10 of cohort was executed. second. Russian military electronics are fully domestic and was never depend on something that could be sanctioned - exactly at such case. Russia has it's own global positioning sattelite network - GLONASS. it is operating and has the same accuracy as NavStar(GPS) and compatible with BeiDou. but you can keep repeation your self-calming mantras about "devastating sanctions", believe bs from ISW and whatever else you do to make your life more comfortable.

[@PTillA-kf7rq]

@@basila33 You call me "dude" but your not treating me as a friend or equal SIR. So DON'T. Now then I really enjoyed you definition of the word Decimation I find it so fascinating being part Italian, I have Roman blood in my veins so anything about the empire that successfully conquered Europe is quite thrilling to me, I must shamefully admit. & that 1/10 thing, Thank you for proving My POINT SIR I never said they weren't getting them, but now getting enough to make more than a few missiles somewhat "accurate". Means I gave an accurate use of the word Decimation if I do say so myself and you helped me to bring this out in detail, thanks again. I am very familiar with Glonass and I know it's accuracy. It's embarrassing to say the least by modern standards, if this were the second world war then no it would be rather impressive. But this is not ww2. Finally I love how you CAN'T AND WON'T tell me Y! Y it took A year and a half to hit one actual factory just barely? And how Zelensky survived so long without pat AA batteries being in Ukraine sooner? SO who really is the one that needs "COMFORT" in the face of sanctions and reports from the institute for the study of war (ISW)? NOT ME.

[@mohammadshehada267]

It it fascinating that all this wonderful plane like TU-95 and it competitor B-52 are all from 1950s 😂😂

[@Aitelly]

They didnot even have computers yet the engineers did it.

[@mohammadshehada267]

@@Aitelly very good video , but you forget to say the TU-95 can fly around 900 KM/h making it as fast as most fighter jet of its era

[@старшийсержант-л7ш]

a little advantage of the TU95 because its a turboprop is that on average they are detected 17 minutes later on satelites. but yes its current role is a long range convetional and nuclear crusie missile spamer supplement to the TU160 qnd upcoming PAK DA project , while the TU22M serves the more multipurpose role of carrying also other weapons like conventional bombs. also one thing to note is that right now only officialy at least only Mig31 and Tu22M variants specially converted for it are able to use the kizhal air launched hypersonic ballistic missile.

[@joaogomes9405]

Assuming the PAK DA even exists. Which considering the whole T14 Armata fiasco, it's likely the PAK DA will end up in the same existencial limbo as the Su-57, technically a part of the Russian Air Force but so prohibitively expensive to buy and upkeep that it exists in too few numbers to have any real impact, and hardly ever sees action out of fear of such a massive investment being shot down. If the invasion of Ukraine has shown the world anything, is that Russia has always kept up a much scarier façade than what it actually has, and that their economy has been getting steadily worse

[@старшийсержант-л7ш]

@@joaogomes9405 bro they ordered like 79 or so SU57 before the war ( litteraly all production has more then trippled since the war began wich is visible on the frontline, Su57 are being spamed and actively used in ukraine , they dont care if ukr manages to shot one down , (cant remember when it was the last time they shot down a plane anyway) , T14 are no fiasco , only in western media , fact is T14 has a production line in UVZ not smaller then the other ones and T14 are being build there , The T14 is a fundamental new tank design in russian service and in the world and it development hasnt even started 10 years ago , parallel they spam T90M wich is as of right now the most common tank on the front thatnks to UVZ spam . If the War in ukraine has shown anything is that russia has higher military industrial capacity then the westbloc. oryx suddently decideded to close it " independent " site down after first mass pictures of burning western tech appeared. But yeah sure lets keep claiming russia uses shovel infantry has no missiles etc dosent make it better. PAK DA exists , in parallel new modernized TU160 are build. People also claimed PAK FA dosent exist , then they claimed it is just a demonstrator, then they claimed it will never leave prototype stage , then they claimed russia wont buy those , then they claimed russia will only buy a little and now they stfu or claim some other bs , or even funnier try to spread bs myths about su57 capabilitys. You see a pattern here ? they also claimed that russia has no drone capability , no cruise missile capability ( or low production lol , lets pretend russia hasnt spamed crusie missiles the enitre time , no funnier they cried that they ran out of old missiles wich is bad because now they firing new ones like WHAT ? ) , night vision and thermal visioncapabilitys etc etc , some fo those bs dates back way into the cold war.

[@blackmamba3427]

Awesome video and graphics

[@Aitelly]

Thanks for the visit

[@paulkurilecz4209]

The US B-52 has been in service since 1952 and the last ones were built in 1962. I feel sorry for the crews of the TU-95 as they are constantly bombarded by the constant sonic boom coming off of the props. The joke in the US Air Force is that you don't need radar to find one, you just listen for it.

[@Mulko-qp7dg]

Tu-95 is a bright example of Russian thinking - economical, reliable, efficient, perspective

[@FlorinSutu]

The turboprop engine for the Tupolev Tu-95 was designed by a team of German engineers and scientists, forced to move and live in Soviet Union. The leader of this team was an engineer who in his better personal days was also a SS officer.

[@Aitelly]

yes your 100% right The German Engineers were hired by the Soviet the Americans ,The Chinese,Argentian India japan etc

[@lakshaysingh9743]

@@Aitelly wait can you tell me more about German engineers hired by India?

[@Aitelly]

@@lakshaysingh9743 Check the link belew German Engineer and India. theprint.in/defence/when-nehru-and-nazi-germany-engineer-built-first-india-made-operational-combat-fighter/123749/

[@unknownitem8101]

I've heard that FAU-1 and FAU-2 engeneer was one of the most (if not the most) important engeneers in American space programm

[@PyromaN93]

All did the same. French and US forces even used ex-SS soldiers in the Vietnam war.

[@kthec1298]

“Why is it still in service?” because it works, don't fix what aint brocken

[@krabatour]

No doubt. They have plenty of them, this airplane is easy to maintain and repair, it is (relatively) cheap to fly them and keep in service. (Compare to another Russian strategic bomber Tu-160).

[@TV.AR-AFRICA_RUSSIA]

Viva Rússia 🇷🇺 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺

[@chubawmaba]

Хуива 😂

[@patrickpirzer4080]

There were many attempts to replace the Tu-95 and the B-52 but they are simply indispensable.

[@r5u26d3]

Fantastic plane, but Hopefully Ukraine knocks them all out

[@m4769794]

Do you want to start a nuclear war?

[@RR-zq3mk]

Shame on you for wishing death of personnel flying those planes. Reported

[@Andy_Novosad]

@@RR-zq3mk These people are mass murderers, executives of criminal orders, terrorists that deliberately destroying critical civilian infrastructure. Death is an easy sentence for them. Report whatever you want, s**thead.