Tupolev TU-95 Bear | RUSSIAN LONG RANGE BOMBER

[@robertzeurunkl8401]

Very happy to have worked for NORAD in the end days of the Cold War. ('82-'85) Performed several fighter intercepts of this aircraft as they flew down the east coast on their way to Cuba. They'd skirt right along the edge of the ADIZ, then suddenly turn in towards the United States. Usually along the coast of South Carolina, Georgia or Florida. And we'd scramble interceptors to go escort them back out to sea. In my day, that was usually either F-106 or F-15 fighters. (Yeah, can you believe F-106s and F-15s were both active duty fighter/interceptors at the same time?). They wait for us to arrive and take pics of our planes for their intel files. We'd take pics of their aircraft for our intel files. They'd hang about for a few minutes, the slowly lumber back out to sea and go on about their business to Cuba. These encounters were always - for the most part - quite friendly. With smiles, and "thumbs-up" all around. And we do the same to them up around Alaska on THEIR border. Gotta tell you... those days were pretty "magical" for me as a young airman.

[@shammy8703]

what did you do when WOPR went haywire?

[@robertzeurunkl8401]

@@shammy8703 I sat in the theater and waited for the General piss on a spark plug. Must have worked. When I went back to work, everything was all settled down again. ;-)

[@17bigdawg]

Thanks for sharing, cool info!

[@mkgtr10]

Awesome story, very interesting point in history.

[@spreadeagled5654]

Robert Zeurunkl - Thank you for your service to the USA. 🇺🇸👍

[@justrandomman2415]

N.U.T. Never Underestimate Tupolev

[@KultAnarchist]

Especially the Tu-144 :D

[@justrandomman2415]

Clem Cornpone umm ok

[@justrandomman2415]

Clem Cornpone no one cares

[@jll5446]

How about no nut November?

[@eugene7309]

@Clem Cornpone I am Russian; It hurts but I have to agree with you.

[@BigPapaKaiser]

The main weapon is the deafening sound of its roaring engines. The bombs are a welcome extra.

[@Condor31i]

British Tornado fighter pilots said, you can hear(!) Bear´s engine at a range of 8 - 10 miles! Thats awesome!

[@cuongle7990]

well jet engines are actually much louder than prop engines you know EDIT: sorry I'm an idiot turbo props are jet engines too :P

[@Condor31i]

YEP, you are right. You can hear only Bear´s PROPELLER-Blades.

[@imrekalman9044]

The tips of the rotor blades are supersonic, that makes them so loud, and unique. 👍 The engines themselves are not that loud.

[@USSAnimeNCC-]

And with bears as pilot so if it crash land the other guy have some else to deal with

[@Big_E_Soul_Fragment]

The contra-rotating propellers looks so sexy

[@M1Garand22]

Whats the point though? Just have both pairs go opposite directions.

[@RusZugunder]

@@M1Garand22 i may be wrong and/or remember incorrectly, but i think it has something to do with air comression for the turbine. Like in some jet engines that compress air by having stationary rows of blades at opposite angle to actual turbine blades... I'm pretty positive that i'm wrong tho.

[@imrekalman9044]

The tips of the rotor blades are supersonic, that makes them so loud, and unique. 👍 And that made the TU-114 airliner variant such a "failure". 👎

[@devon4520]

Not to mention alot of cameras fps matches perfectly with the TU-95s prop RPMs... Makes it looks like its just floating there

[@aaronc9279]

@@imrekalman9044 Tu-144 isn't a Turboprop though? It was a failure because how unsafe and unstable it was. The vibrations inside of the cabin were quite bad and one crashed while being showcased in the Paris Airshow.

[@ivankrylov6270]

If it's set to be in service till 2040, then might as well extend that life to 2056 to have a bomber thats in service to a century.

[@jebise1126]

pretty much the same as for b52 and chinook with chinooks even still being produced.

[@DavidWatersJames]

Tu-95 will still be 'mission capable' , when all B-52's are in the 'boneyard' !

[@jebise1126]

@@DavidWatersJames well to be fair b52 were build in 50s and 60s while tu95 were build up to 1990 so some are quite new...

[@bombarderoazul]

@@jebise1126 well the TU 95H were built in 1980s, but the tu 142 are from early 1960s, latest B 52, are from mid 1960s

[@augustobraidotti6992]

@@DavidWatersJames No, don't think so. The H model will probably fly until the 20150s

[@VictorySpec]

The propeller blade tips were going faster than the speed of sound which made most of the noise (technically 32 mini continuous Sonic booms)

[@Condor31i]

And thats why Dr Scheibe choosed eight blades per engine contra-rotating propellers. A version with 4 blades cracked one year before in a flight test (Tu4). The entire russian flight-crew died in the following crash.

[@marksman712]

also why its unlikely we will see its speed record broken by a multi-engine turprop aircraft, as going supersonic makes those sections of the blades, by the nature of supersonic airflow, ineffective at producing more thrust than drag. The Tu-95 operates at the very edge of the performance envelope of ANYTHING propelled by props

[@leneanderthalien]

nope thats false the prop tips are NOT supersonic, the only prop who was supersonic was the prop from the Republic XF84H thunderscreech, and it was so incredible noisy that the ground mens say about it: this aircraft not need weapons, with only a low pass , it kill all ennemys at ground...

[@marksman712]

@@leneanderthalien ok it depends how youre measuring the speed of the tips, if its RAF speed then yes, its sonic. but relative to the observer it may not be sonic

[@invertedv12powerhouse77]

Funny is that most countries avoided having the props pass the apeed of sound because the pilot would get sick or it was way too loud. Russians throw 4 contraprops on this bitch doing just that

[@drrocketman7794]

The 'Bear' is still one scary machine.

[@ivorismail9834]

I am still figuring out ones like Fishbed (MiG 21) and Frogfoot (SU-25)

[@militartan2944]

Sure

[@joehentalack2443]

And 20mm cannons mounted on the rear,in place of the landing parachutes compartment,they had to revise the defense flares,because they were burning so hot and for so long,that they would start forest fires...!!!!!

[@zachariasvan3965]

For the pilots?

[@GarioTheRock]

@@zachariasvan3965 Hell no! The TU-95 withstood the Tsar Bomba blast from what, like 50 km away? And the 3rd degree burn radius was what, 120 MILES? There's nothing that ought to scare the pilots other than meteor showers 😂

[@vonsauerkraut]

i'm not surprised the the indian air force one it has a big bombay.

[@doubtingthomas6146]

von sauerkraut - Oh dear lord...

[@wasntprepared]

XD

[@frednesbittjr.7862]

52 Extra Points...!

[@vikramr3778]

Indian Navy..not IAF. And it's used for maritime reconnaissance, so the 'bombay' doesn't matter much.

[@tyroniousyrownshoolacez2347]

HA! Funny shite right there. Good one!

[@0d138]

*Manufacturer:* "Comrade, how many fuel tanks do we put on this Bear?" *Designer:* "Yes!"

[@_Matsimus_]

LOL

[@Omar-kk9fp]

That banal format has been discontinued due to overuse.

[@rays5073]

IS THAT YOUR HOUSE OVER THERE?! *opens bomb bay*

[@stevenlarratt3638]

No thats my city... lol

[@chrishansen9323]

😂😂😂

[@RR-us2kp]

Tu 95 Bear: Eat this bitch. And guess what, you can't do jack about it. Bwahahaha

[@ronalddeblois4775]

@@stevenlarratt3638 ⁹ou

[@temich1985]

Yeah it is my house with my lovely babe inside...wait a minute, that pickup truck parked there is not mine!! Release bombs now!!!

[@p51mustang24]

It's a good aircraft, as is the B-52. Oddly they have both found themselves to be longer lasting than the supersonic bombers of the 70's. With new wing mounted long range missiles, they are still excellent for nuclear standoff, and when air superiority is achieved, they are a cheap way to drop A LOT of bombs.

[@thomasborgsmidt9801]

The supersonic bombers of the 70's were a disaster: The B-58 Hustler was not supersonic at low altitude and had controllability problems. Problem was that the russian missile defences was able to pluck the bombers down from high altitude - as Fracis Gary Powers U-2 showed.

[@mandalorian_guy]

The B-52 was unfortunately designed to be used and upgraded for "100 years" and is scheduled to be fully retired by 2052 however it will probably be extended or replaced by the B-21 like the B-1B and B-2 are.

[@JB-ym4up]

I think the b52 has some marginal advantages over all, but this is surely the most impressive prop plane to ever see regular production. At the end of the say either aircraft will get the job done at a fraction of the cost of new 'high tech' stuff. I wonder if there are tu95 with 3 generations of pilots flying same plane, like b52, wouldn't surprise me one bit.

[@p51mustang24]

Having it around for 100 years is great. It's obviously no longer suited to penetrating hostile air space, but it has become an excellent and dependable long range missile platform with more loiter time than than it's newer and more expensive brethren. Armed with long range missiles she can even be used in naval warfare. The mission has changed, but she keeps proving useful.

[@Riceball01]

J Bottero I've wondered the same thing about the B-52 myself, the oldest B-52s are certainly old enough for 2 generations to have flown or worked on the same exact plane and it may be possible for 3. If there is, that would be an awesome PR opportunity for the USAF to be able to say that they have had 3 generations flying or working on the exact same plane and by exact same plane I mean as in same tail/registration number and not just model.

[@Big_E_Soul_Fragment]

I bet when aliens invade, the TU-95s and B-52s are gonna get fitted with warp drives so they could nuke the alien home planet.

[@rays5073]

CYCLONIC TORPEDOES!

[@randomuser5443]

Fire the space bombs

[@spacedoutchimp4454]

Dont you mean the Space Bear

[@макслюлюкин]

In Russia now will build modernized Tu-160 and Tu-22, they completely replace the old Tu-95, in turn, has already begun the development of a new strategic missile carrier to replace the Tu-160, I think earlier than 20 years of new development should not wait

[@afatcatfromsweden]

The tu 95 would not need a warp drive just a bit of stalinium fule

[@fuze3107]

You see if Engine too loud it will destroy sound detekting equipments and deafen enemies so they no hear thing until too late ))))))))))))))))))))). *TSAR BOMBA GOES OFF IN THE BACK GROUND*

[@pimpinaintdeadho]

thehostagekilla fuze Dah Komrade

[@EbonyPhoenix]

WHHAAATTTTTT???????????????? I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!!!!!

[@Poramola007]

It'S.ment to be heard for diplomatic posturing.

[@xavierrodriguez2463]

@Leonidis78 the sound of the engine would shatter the tigermoths.

[@Owlmare]

Leonidis78 Cool. Just don’t use your new F-35s, they melt in rain.

[@graeme3023]

NATO always assigns Russian aircraft really cool sounding reporting names...

[@politicallyunreliable4985]

Like the "kitchen" anti-ship missile?

[@graeme3023]

@@politicallyunreliable4985 - well that's not an aircraft... but talking about missiles, what about the _"fagot"_ wire guided anti-tank missile 😆

[@davidgreen5099]

Yeah! Like Fagot.

[@graeme3023]

Or the little known _"Russian cock sucker"_ multi launch rocket system.. 😆😆😆

[@Danspy501st]

It is a good way for the members of NATO to know what they are talking about. Like this "There is 3 Bears coming!" Well, then there most be 3 bombers of this kind. I have a book somwhere to ID planes that was used doing Cold War. And Bear is not used for any other then this. So if Russia sends an other type of bomber, then it is called by that codename between the NATO. It is the same with their fighters, like Flankers

[@KusanBiswas]

Truly unique machine! One of the most impressive feat of engineering!

[@VioletMarbitz]

As soon as I saw tu95 and matsimus, I knew I was going to have a good video to watch before bed.

[@Duececoupe]

Got to loooove the Tu-95 Bear! 👍🏻👌🏻👏🏻🤘🏻😍

[@CIoudStriker]

It does have a very nice chin.

[@militartan2944]

YA!

[@harryguy76]

It is nothing but a show piece used to scare the sheep...that is why it still uses props...that is why they are constantly caught skirting North American air space and quickly advertised to the public as a scare tactic...to scare the sheeps tax dollars right out of their pockets...cause in reality one of these would never be used to deploy nukes on the US...they are used purely for the scare factor that the Russians are coming...or could be lol...after 50+ years of this one would think the sheep would have caught on to the game...but no. Both Russia and the USA use each other as boogeymen we need to fear and defend against...along with China...NK... Iran terrorists ect...aliens are next.

[@jayman7752]

Matt says Moscow like an American. You’ve changed Matt - you’ve changed.

[@p51mustang24]

He's joined the Dark Side. Can you blame him, we have cookies. And cheeseburgers of every kind imaginable, which are the greatest thing ever. I mean, the worst cheeseburger I ever had was still delicious. How can you argue with that?

[@HannarrMontannarr]

Moz-cow.

[@whomagoose6897]

Matt lives in Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. Alberta borders Montana, USA. Little wonder his British accent is changing towards the American style. Matt can even say "yippie yippie yeah yeah yippie yippie yeah" just like Bruce Willis did in the "Die Hard" movies. With proper elocution of a serious bad ass. Hoo-rah for the great Matsimus!

[@ajg7609]

Cracking vid Matt.. just as you said "It's a beast".

[@specforged5651]

One of my favorites ever. I got to see one up close as well as start (the coolest and most amazing part), takeoff and perform at the MAKS airshow in 2004. This thing literally shook the ground as it rolled down the runway and you could seriously feel the power as it would fly by. Probably one of the coolest aviation things I’ve ever seen. And I’ve been involved with a lot being a corporate pilot on a Challenger 350. I’ve also flown many King Airs so I have a special place in my heart for turboprop aircraft as well. Thanks for sharing.

[@1IbramGaunt]

In Soviet Russia... Communist Space-Bears is NOT A MEME

[@frankbaine3918]

The Bear is a retro-cool looking bomber IMHO and those opposing props are mesmerizing in slo-mo.

[@prashantmakemerich]

sadly all tu-142 mke of Indian Navy were decommissioned in 2017. But they are turned into museums , if you want you can go to vishakhapatnam, India to see it in close.

[@VipinKumar-kh5bd]

Not all are decommissioned. Navy still flies them as it is the only bomber left with Indian forces now.

[@rdc515]

I am a fan of the aircraft but as far as I knew the IN used them and not the IAF. Can you please share some source or links to pictures with IAF insignia on the Tu-142M? Excited to confirm this.

[@imrekalman9044]

@@rdc515 kzbin.info/www/bejne/o3vFkqdpfL-rjdE Good enough? :)

[@draganbuhanovich6411]

So you’re flying on vimana,s now.?

[@thesketchydude1315]

interviewer: so, Nikolai...how was your time being a pilot of the Tu-95? Nikolai:...What did you say?

[@zephod]

B I G B O Y E

[@Volke_]

RDS-220 commomnly known as Tsar bomb isn't the one of the most powerfull, it is the MOST powerfull explosive device ever detonated and constructed in human history.

[@spykezspykez7001]

Ahem, komrad, I think you need to sit down... I have something I need to tell you about...

[@nottoday3817]

Technically, it is the second. The most powerfull explosive device was the untested tsar bomba, expected to be twice the power of the tested one. But when they see what one of those babies could do, they thought: Well, that's enough.

[@Volke_]

@@nottoday3817 No, the orginal plan for the RDS-220 thermonuclear bomb (commomnly known as Tsar Bomb) was to be 100 mgt but after certain predictions it became painfully clear that with such a yield big population centers hundreds of kilometers away will suffer substantial damage. So to not destroy your own cities and cause unnecesary problems the power was lowered to 50 Mgt. Bomb still got 58 Mgts of yield and is the most powerfull explosive device ever detonated in human history. Both of you are talking about concepts, projects or possibilities that were never used.

[@TheoSloat]

eating baked beans and boiled eggs don't count

[@anthonyc4138]

@@TheoSloat lol

[@SomeoneChessy]

The blades of the turboprops are actually continually breaking the sound barrier (if wikipedia is legit on this), hence the noise.

[@reinededeurwaerder-sulmon1506]

Wikipedia is gone to the Dark side, beware!

[@Doug6412]

Speed comes from pros set at incredibly coarse pitch and blades rotating slowly. Sound is intense though. Greenies would hate it. Loved the TU 114 development of this aircraft. Largest pre jumbo passenger liner and largest prop liner. Turbo props always beat jets in economy. This plane is a beast.

[@pegzounet]

Those engines are pure pr0n. When the a400m came out, the motorists were all braggy about the 'most powerful turboprop in europe', and i was just thinking kuznetzov engineers must be laughing their ass off at it. Retired kuznetzov engineers, because, you know, 60 years before... Current mother of all turboprops is the progress D27. 300 kg less than a TP400, and almost 3000hp more.

[@Reznetwork-d5t]

Nope. It seems tha D27 is still 800hp less than NK-12. 14000hp vs 14800hp of early NK-12. There are also a couple TU-160 test aircraft equiped with 16000hp NK-16. Also there are stationary versions of both engines made for gas industry compressor stations where power has been boosted even more.

[@ShadowFalcon]

bconneau Well, to be fair to Airbus, the A400M is still the most powerful single rotation turboprop.

[@chemist_preacher]

My uncle worked all his life as an engineer at the Progress plant. I could never beat him in chess)

[@chuck1641]

Thanks for this one Matt. I've always been fascinated with the TU 95.

[@reaverman]

The engines are so distinctive, that we hear them on our hydrophones way before the radar sees them. When they approach the UK!

[@reaverman]

I posted that, before you got to that bit in the video...doh :D

[@something-kinesis]

launching range of cruise missile 3000 km... If smt will starts you will not hear it :) But i hope not started:)

[@andycraig7734]

I'm sure the hydrophones are much closer to Russia than radar.

[@something-kinesis]

@@andycraig7734 but TU-95ms can launch missile from the territory of Russia. 3000km range. Hydrophones? Who cares?:) The main goal of this planes is launch missiles. Surviving of planes not so important. So i hope we never seen this situation.

[@reaverman]

@@andycraig7734 it's the harmonic effect on water, and how it amplifies. It effectively announces the approach.

[@felixd.6293]

Explaining all that stuff you left out is exactly why I watch this channel. I want to hear that stuff. You aren't wasting my time by including that other stuff.

[@michaeldean2447]

The cold war produced some of the most amazing aircraft. The SR-71has to be my favorite of that era.

[@willowpitts6539]

It is like the 10th time I have seen your video and it is still 1 of the best Thank you again for your hard work

[@TheGuy0108]

I really like your channel, really interesting and well presented.

[@cbeckett2787]

Just stumbled on this as I start my first BEAR build - well done, Sir. Thanks!

[@ramadhani201]

those propellers looks like an illusion *:o*

[@Condor31i]

Dr Scheibe designed the monstrous contra-rotating propellers. One engine drives two large four-bladed (eight blades per engine) contra-rotating propellers, 5.6 m (18 ft 4.5 in) in diameter, and 6.2 m (20 ft 4.1 in) in the NK-12MA and NK-12MV. It is the most powerful turboprop engine to enter service (ever).

[@sidharthcs2110]

They are illushin Ha ha ha ha haaaaaa Sorry ........... I had to

[@truepatriot5425]

@@sidharthcs2110 hahhahahahaha nice one

[@1IbramGaunt]

Stare at them continuously while you're high on acid, I dare you :p

[@stevenlarratt3638]

We as humans see at around 30 frames per second which is why it seems they are going either forwards or backwards very slow at some points, similar to car wheels!

[@Hardbass2021]

The propellers rotate so fast that it looked slow when the camera caught the video. Dang! And the sound too, like it very much.

[@SteelbeastsCavalry]

4:41 Look at the slope of that runway!! It's practically a ski-ramp!

[@baker64177]

Love all your videos. No matter the topic you do a amazing job. You are greatly appreciated.

[@karlvongazenberg8398]

I read somewhere, that the tailguns were used also as chaff and flare "dispensers"

[@wigon]

That is true. The AM-23 cannon that is used on the tail gun can fire special munition loaded with either chaff or flares. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afanasev_Makarov_AM-23#Ammunition

[@carsten9168]

The Tupolev TU-95 'Bear' was the Soviet Union's answer to the venerable Boeing B-52 Stratofortress and both huge planes are a marvel to watch even to this day after nearly 60 years of service ! Timeless aircraft !

[@per-cq5nk]

The Tu-95MSs are from 80s and early 90s.

[@thesaul9484]

Does it launch bears?

[@fulcrum2951]

Bears launch it

[@imrekalman9044]

werebears

[@radenprasetyo8234]

With vodka attached

[@B2BWide]

It can. All three types: solar bears, polar bears and bipolar bears ;)

[@karll.masoner6918]

Back in 1966 to 1968 I was assigned to an attack squadron on the Enterprise. The fighter squadrons were always scrambling to escort Bears away from the task force. I’m not sure why, but once they were allowed to buzz the ship. I was below decks, but we heard it go up the port side. I always wished I hadn’t missed that. I was the squadron’s classified material control person, a yeoman 2nd class, at the time, so I got to see most of the pictures that were taken that day. I also knew of a couple of contraband photos (rumors), but never saw them. I saw Bears on other occasions, but always a little pinpoint at the head of a long contrail. There was nothing stealthy about a Bear but if it was close enough to see it was close enough to vaporize you.

[@mervynsands3501]

Monumental kit and still going strong after all this time. Reminds me of a super slim oversized glider but with engines thrown in for good measure! Quite remarkable really, top it if you can!!!

[@jebadiahkerman7846]

"Incredibly loud" that is the understatement of the century.

[@johnw.peterson4311]

I admire the Russian people. I hope one day we and Russia link up as strong allies and defend the world against terrorism. In addition, as friends, both countries would flourish even more than we both currently do

[@johnknapp952]

I wonder where you were when Russia as the USSR was the main propagator of terrorism throughout the world?

[@proudtitanicdenier4300]

@@johnknapp952 The USSR fell, just in case you haven't noticed.

[@mastathrash5609]

Nice! I am glad that you finally made this video.

[@connorbaer4564]

A video on the B-36 Peacemaker would be cool

[@salvaahthesageofficial2457]

That's an iconic plane..made in 1956 and estimated to be used at least until 2040...this proves how capable this plane really is👌

[@redtsar]

I would love a pt 2, I could listen all day about this aircraft, it’s such an awestruck bomber and so unique, I remember seeing these bad boys in Ace Combat 4, the game that got me into aircrafts, can’t wait for AC7, I’m itching to get my hands on that game.

[@videowilliams]

Be it B-52 or Bear, it seems there's simply no replacement for a big high-flying beast like this in your air force. I too am glad it keeps those giant turboprops turning as an engineering achievement. This was nicely explained.

[@mr.terrific601]

Russia's armored vehicles and aircrafts are the most lethal weapons in the world for the crew members operating it of course 😭😭😭😭😀😀 great video bro keep up the good work

[@Absaalookemensch]

The Bear is a beast, a winning design. Like the B-52, both of them need to remain in service for many decades. If I had the money, i would love to have a Tu-95 as my private airplane. I'm half deaf, so the noise wouldn't bother me. And there's nothing like cruising in a hot rod with a deep, throaty voice.

[@comradedoge9644]

Such a beautiful aircraft

[@travishabursky4362]

I'm right there with you, Matsimus. Seeing that beast of an aircraft roar to life is on my bucket list.

[@williamworth2746]

This and the B52 have been running almost 70 years

[@bestamerica]

hi W W... ' american B-52 bomber airplane is the best leader top airplane... ussr russia tu-95 is a very lower classic airplane

[@DavidWatersJames]

Tu-95 info here is 10 years BEHIND current variants. Tu-95 is currently being tested for carrying Khinzal Hypersonic Missiles. Potentially, it could carry 6 Khinzals, both in bomb bays and underwing pylons. Currently Tu95's carry either or both P-800 and/or other cruise missiles. Kalibr being the most common.

[@jonpaullettice1685]

Great video.. Really cool.. But can you review the B52??? Cheers..

[@_Matsimus_]

Jonpaul Lettice I already have lol

[@brucebartman4782]

TU-95 is just a remarkable warcraft!

[@drrocketman7794]

If North America ever faces a Red Dawn scenario, you bet your ass we'll be seeing these.

[@randonlando418]

DrRocketman 779 yup!

[@randonlando418]

They better watch out for our fighter jets, though.

[@politicallyunreliable4985]

Logistics say this is not possible. Just go melt that old VHS you know is sitting there.

[@_Matsimus_]

*hear these 😁

[@imrekalman9044]

World in Conflict kzbin.info/www/bejne/mJu6ZJ6Dg8aKaNE :D

[@kevinking5406]

My battle group was buzzed by one in the Pacific in the early 90's. I was impressed.

[@afatcatfromsweden]

This thing can travel from the north pole to the Falklands, bomb some shit and travel back. This might be my fav bomber of all time.

[@scottyweimuller6152]

It has in flight refueling ffs....

[@afatcatfromsweden]

errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr dude. Im quite sure the book i learnt that from dident say shit about mid air refuling. I will see if it Did and if so i will admit my mistake.

[@afatcatfromsweden]

It dident mention shit about mid air refuling. The operational range is litelrally that high.

[@scottyweimuller6152]

@@afatcatfromsweden see that black tube coming from the nose of the bear? Im pretty sure thats for air refueling like if you're familiar with the Sea Stallion helicopter and a few other military helicopters they have the same pole sticking from the front which is for air refueling. the older first variants of the bear didn't have that since nobody had that technology back then plus it logistically just a good idea since literally most militaries do it and the Russians wouldn't waste money on the time it takes to take off fly land and have to refuel.

[@afatcatfromsweden]

Scotty Weißmüller i locked up What it was used for and yes it was for mid air refuling. Im gona look up the range of the beat and see Who was right

[@Tomcattube1]

Another great briefing! Thanks Matt

[@darrelbautista9038]

Oldies but still working 😎

[@rileyernst9086]

The TU-95, flying the world and making friends since 1956! Living the dream!

[@dougmate2378]

Can you do a video on the M113 set up for anti aircraft. Sorry drawing a blank on the nomenclature

[@Reactordrone]

M48 chaparral or the M163 VADS?

[@dougmate2378]

@@Reactordrone M163 that's what I was I was thinking about

[@craigpennington1251]

Like they always say," If it's not broke, don't fix it." And certainly this one's not broke but getting better with age. I have seen these in flight over the Med and over our carrier, well escorted of coarse. You are right, they hum loudly and they are fast. Great video. Keep them coming.

[@cerperalpurpose]

Handley Page Victor maybe next? Best bomber in the world! Though of course I’m biased because my dad worked on them.

[@friedchicken297]

The Tu-95 is probably the single plane that got me into aeronautics and aeronautical history. If anyone asks why there's only 4 words needed: Just look at it.

[@ivebeenbamboozled9210]

B 36 also tested a nuclear powered aircraft theory

[@p51mustang24]

Thank god everyone decided it was a bad idea. Imagine if one had a malfunction at 40,000ft, blew up, and crashed? Even the wonderful B-52 had a lot of planes go down in it's first 20 years. On a submarine you can design the reactor to be contained and safe in the event of sinking MUCH more easily than in an aircraft. Aircraft are pretty safe, but when things go wrong on them, THEY GO REALLY WRONG>

[@jebise1126]

yeah but apparently russian turn their reactor on and used special engines too while b36 was only flying with reactor. all that was made obsolete by ICBMs

[@jebise1126]

@chris younts you can attach bombs to wongs

[@gma729]

GREAT VID MATSIMUS !! GREAT JOB 👍👍

[@dickiedollop]

What’s the advantage of contra rotating propellers ? - serious question thx

[@Mira_linn]

No angular momentum as the rotating forces takes out each other decreasing stress in the frame and engine. So let's say you are flying a single engine prop aircraft it will try to make you rotate the opesit way of your prop rotation so you will have to fight it or do as the Italians during ww2 and make the wings different sizes

[@dickiedollop]

Kenneth Hermann thanks for explaining. - so a plane the size of the bear this would make a significant difference in its handling I’m guessing

[@americanmade6996]

Richard Evans On any multi-engine prop-driven plane. The P-38 Lightning also had counter-rotating propellers.

[@pegzounet]

You do pay for it though, with the added weight and complexity and reliability of the transmission. That's what makes it so impressive, that it can run something so complex at this kind of vulgar amount of horsepower. This kind of things is not trivial, even with a normal propeler and two thirds the power and modern materials, the tp400 has been plagued by gearbox problems

[@markfryer9880]

Contra,-rotating propellers allow aircraft designers to utilise high power engines to provide greater performance while eliminating the stresses and handling issues imposed by single direction propellers. The advantage is that the number of blades can increase to use the available power without having to increase the size of the blades or alter the undercarriage to deal with longer blade lengths. The downside is the greater gearbox engineering complexity to service both propellers.

[@Kimjongil-pu6rk]

With all due respect to B-52, B-1B and B-2... this is the badassest bomber ever built.

[@ahanafhasan8038]

Can you make a video about the TYPE 59 MBT ???

[@paddy1952]

In the '80's, I flew for Bradley/First Air out of Resolute Bay, NWT. (no Nunavut then). One thing we did from there, every spring, was Twin Otter (DHC-6) tourist flights to the North Pole, refuelling at Eureka, on Ellesmere Island. Basically, a Twin Otter would land on the sea ice in the pole region (it's more of an area than a point if you will), and leave the starboard engine running while rich (fare was around CDN$25000, plus getting to Resolute) passengers disembarked from the port-side cargo door and took pictures of themselves, popped champagne and generally cavorted. Because they actually landed on re-frozen leads in the ice, and it's impossible to be certain of the thickness of freshly frozen ice without boring a test hole, certain precautions were taken beyond simply keeping an engine running. (BTW, I've heard there's a Ken Borek Twin Otter sitting on the ocean floor up there) Survival gear would be taken off the plane to older, thicker ice, and the crew would slip a portable ELT into a parka pocket in case help were needed. One of my friends, piloting such an expedition, accidentally switched on the ELT as he jammed it in his pocket. About twenty minutes later a Tu-95 made a low pass to have a look at them. It flew over at about 300' , circled a couple of times and left. My friend tried to raise them on the radio. After all, they had to be listening out on 121.5 and 243.0 mhz, but they didn't respond. Clearly, the Soviets were using the excellent range of The Bear to patrol "their" Arctic and Polar regions. It was comforting to know that if you got jammed up at the North Pole, at least the Soviets would show up to help you.

[@michailkotlin7336]

Thanks for tastefull video, comrade matsimus. I`ll buy you a nice vodka bottle, if you visit Moscow.

[@randompotato2474]

Loved your video and Bear is my favourite turboprop aircraft also

[@EthanThomson]

jet engines and turbo props arent too different the only difference is a turboprop uses the propeller for thrust, whereas a typical jet engine moves the air through the engine itself and accelerates it basically, F=M*A

[@BubbaZanetti6666]

In the flesh things sound awesome!!! The counter rotating props have a right funny beat too them.

[@agent_sakura_hh7215]

ITS 2AM, CHRIST, WHY AM I STILL UP!!!!!

[@artilrayshellzgtfo8209]

Felt the same way, but last night. It's beautiful 11 in the morning now!

[@keirfarnum6811]

HUANGAS INSOMNIA, INSOMNIA, INSOMNIA, INSOMNIA, INSOMNIA, INSOMNIA,...

[@noobplayer_23]

You mentioned God A lifetime in GULAG

[@elrondmcbong467]

There was even a Bear Airliner designated as Tu-114. The Turboprop has one huge advantage over Jet or Turbofan Engines. They can land and start on unpaved runways somewhat safely. This is also the Reason, why the C-130 uses Turboprops as well.

[@mrdeutche7350]

Imagine the thing in war thunder

[@polaskatyu9368]

mr deutche and the 36 :). I saw the b36 because I don’t like the b52 lel

[@valuedhumanoid6574]

I was on the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) back in 86 through 90. When we were deployed, we had the Bear visit us on regular basis. In every case, you could hear them long before you seen them. It makes a totally unique and distinctive sound. They would also have a Tomcat above and behind them the whole way. They kept close tabs on us. Many times after breakfast I would head out to a weather deck to have a smoke and would see them. Sometimes in the dead of the night in bad weather just to show they could do that too.

[@julienckjm7430]

13:35 "Proud"??🤣🤣 Matsimus is turning rusky!!😅😅😅

[@critterjon4061]

I love how the shutter speed on cameras make it look it the propellers on theses things are going in slow motion

[@iwantcrawfish6110]

A bear with the sound of a million roaring bears to drop nuclear armed bears with the force of a billion bears upon capitalist pigs to turn into craklins and fried pork skins

[@butchciarrocchi7250]

People like you give your country a bad name im a American and i respect any country that wants to live a peaceful life in any war it is the civilian population that suffers ten times more then the military just my opinion not that anyone asked for it

[@stevedugger7552]

I've met Retard people and it makes me sad..then here you come and im really really bummed

[@perennity]

I've been waiting for a video on the Bear!

[@boffinboy100]

Try to go to MAKS 2019 - you'll probably see 1 or 2...

[@krishnapratap4561]

Tuplove Tu-95 Bear is awesome... thank you so much for this video...👍👍👍👍👍

[@granadakimj]

At 10:31 is that an atlas in the cockpit...?!

[@arthipex8512]

It's common for pilots of even modern planes to carry maps with them.

[@granadakimj]

Yeah for navigation, I get that. But an atlas? :-)

[@lycossurfer8851]

It's got the range for a multi page atlas. Paper is a good back up

[@luckylittletree5282]

While the Russian have the Bear as their loudest aircraft, the US has the XF-84H Thunderscreech. It was so loud that it gave a engineer a seizure from the continuious shockwace from its supersonic propellers.

[@laejabu]

is that the plane freakin submarines can detect underwater ? Lmao

[@Condor31i]

YEP! Because bear´s propellers making so many noise at maximum speed. Engines Compressor Axial flow pressure(!) reaching a critical speed too! Its an superlative jet-prop-engine. No one ever had build such a strong prop-Engine since 1951(!).

[@Outland9000]

And its still not the loudest prop aircraft... XF-84H wins that prize.

[@pegzounet]

Outland, wow didn't know that one. I've always heard that the GE open rotor prototype in the 80's was cripplingly loud, i'd be interested in the comparison

[@Outland9000]

🤔 GE open rotor... maybe... Its a very interesting thing for sure. Although I have never heard the XF-84H I have heard it was unbearable to be around and could be heard in flight +20 miles away. kzbin.info/www/bejne/i3fLhK2ImryHndU

[@notyouraverageeverydayblac2731]

This is a beast. If you've ever seen one in real life. It's scary watching it and actually feeling it's presence in flight. I know why it's called a bear. It's bark or growl is worse than it's bite.

[@lencao4515]

The only bear that can fly

[@VandalAudi]

How do they fare when compared to the B-52s? Both are strategic bombers from the 50s that still kept in service.

[@politicallyunreliable4985]

This aircraft does have one glaring restriction though. It is only operated by large hairy men who wear leather or latex thongs.

[@pimpinaintdeadho]

Politically Unreliable hence the designation

[@JohnFrumFromAmerica]

At 1:00 It's amazing how slow the propellers move really shows how efficient a counter rotating propeller is.

[@AtheistOrphan]

JohnFrumFromAmerica - I take it that’s meant to be a joke?

[@thomasthedankengine1409]

MORE RUSSIA OR GULAG FOR YOU!!

[@AaaBbb-kw5em]

Love those vids Keep it up, man