Which one is better Tu-95 Bear or B-52 Bomber

[@AHille444]

The Tu-95 is so loud submarines can pick up the acoustic signature under water.

[@Ильнур-ы1е]

Если ты услышал ту95 то всё вокруг уже сгорело.

[@andreww1225]

@@Ильнур-ы1еno it sucks

[@nimaiiikun]

A Swedish submarine once shot down a Tu-95 out of the sky in 1984

[@Ильнур-ы1е]

​@@nimaiiikunмного чего посбивали за эти годы

[@mithridatesii6925]

@@Ильнур-ы1е yeah USSR era propaganda doesnt work anymore, people seen how weak you guys are in Ukraine

[@joelester7704]

I had a flight instructor when I was in Civil Air Patrol, (back in the early 70's) who was a naval fighter jock during the cold war. He had to intercept the Tu-95 on several occasions. It was so loud that he said he felt like he was going to throw up every time. Yes the buff is loud, but the bear is on another level.

[@stanburk7392]

Crew comfort. You're going on a 24 + hour mission you can choose a plane that is so loud submarines can hear it. it's cramped and has very little in the way of creature comforts. this results in fatigue and all that goes along with it. The B52 is getting a multitude of upgrades to make the flight more enjoyable.

[@CJ-xl3dh]

@@stanburk7392 The TU95 has a longer range, sipping less fuel from its turboprops and despite width, can be easily customed for better comfort. I'd love the opportunity to travel aboard one. I have seen one before as a kid and they are really loud though.

[@stanburk7392]

@@CJ-xl3dh B 52 8,800 miles TU 95 9,300 miles So yes it does have a slight edge in range. However everything else favors the B52. Service ceiling B52 50,000 feet TU95 45,000 feet Speed B52 650 mph max. 509 mph cruise TU95 575 mph max. 440 mph cruise Load B52 70,000 pounds TU95 33,000 pounds So you can go an additional 500 miles but the B52 will get to target sooner drop over twice the ordnance. All that aside no matter how nice you make the inside of the TU 95 you're going to have to deal with the prop noise. Hard to relax when screaming is the only way to converse.

[@mgxd11]

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@stanburk73921,524m of ceiling advantage is nothing, speed is not really the answer, the only significative advantage of B-52 over Tu-95 is the Load, great job with his cargo capacity!

[@CJ-xl3dh]

@@stanburk7392 true;i guess it comes down to personal preferences🤷🏼‍♂️

[@stanburk7392]

@@mgxd11 speed is of the utmost importance. Cuts down on the time they have to intercept you and gets you out of the area quicker. At mach 2 a 50 mph gain isn't a big deal at 500 mph it is a life time. And again the noise level of the TU 95 has always been an issue. Crew fatigue in any industry or military operation is one of the biggest contributors to errors that can and will cost lives.

[@richardkrochmal6028]

Hands down, I will place my vote for the B-52. No mention was made regarding the maintenance of the planes. Certainly spare parts, ease and the amount of maintenance required would be an important aspect to consider along with crew comfort. As far as radar cross sections there’s simply no way to hide planes as large as B-52 or Russian Bear. One must note the difference in payload, 70,000lbs for the B-52 vs 33,000lbs for the Bear.❤

You will never see a Tu95 carrying 33,000 lb though. Maybe if it carried iron... In general, a full load would be about 20,000 lb.

[@scotte2815]

And, AND, the B52 held the world record fir distance flown woithout refueling, Which is half way around the world

[@bricefleckenstein9666]

The Tsar Bomba was 60,000 pounds, and dropped by a Bear. The mods to that Bear involved the physical SIZE of the bomb, NOT it's weight - it was too large of diameter to fit inside the aircraft fully. So the statement "never" is flat out WRONG on it carrying 33,000 pounds. It might "cube out" before it masses out, LIKE THE B-52 DOES if it's not carrying "dumb iron bombs in the old style built-in bomb racks".

[@bricefleckenstein9666]

​@@scotte2815 Barely - it was 12,500 and SMALL change miles vs just under 25,000 miles around the world at the equator. Held that record for a VERY long time - been broken at least twice by powered aircraft since, Voyager and the Fosset jet variation on Voyager. But the Buff has a usable payload.

@@bricefleckenstein9666 You talk more crap than an actual katsap....

[@rrrosadorr]

There'a also the fact that the B-52 has been used in combat a heck of a lot more than the Tu-95 over the last 69 years since it first entered service. There's a body of military doctrine that has been built up over the decades for the B-52 and newer weapons systems that have expanded the types of missions wherein the B-52 can be deployed.

[@Justanaccountforthings]

It’s worth taking in account the the b52 has been used in countries without an actual army and without any air defense. Also in Vietnam 31 of them got shot down.

[@JoeyRay-fz1qe]

The thing is the US has attacked many countries, mostly on lies after WW2 while Russia has attacked very few hence the difference in War Use!

[@kq1534]

@@Justanaccountforthings it’s still experience nonetheless

[@MudThought]

Kinda weird to brag that the owner of the plane is warmonger

[@JoeyRay-fz1qe]

@@MudThought Not really, how many wars do you think that the US has started or been in since WW2. Then think how many other countries has been in or started a war. The US hands down own both!

[@davidtownsend5436]

Bear for it's coolness factor, BUFF for it's combat record. No question which one I'd choose when the shooting starts.

[@wolfshanze5980]

As a retired 20 year USAF veteran, I can assure you the "BUFF" is not known to anyone in the Air Force as the "Big Ugly Fat Fellow"... it stands for something else.

[@Rickyboricky]

F'n A😂

[@Dave-mi3jy]

Eff Yeah !!!!

[@donscheid97]

That was probably made up by some basement geek to be funny. Internet is the only place I've heard it. It doesn't really "stand for" anything, it is a nickname, as GIs are wont to use, to shorten a conversation from Bee Fifty-Two to just B F, or B-u-F with reference to a powerlifter being buff and strong - which it is. If anyone recalls the Jeep was a G-P, general purpose vehicle on a supply list.

[@markosan3366]

What's Big Ugly Fat Fellow in USAF?

[@poohbear501]

From another USAF vet, thank you! So damn irritating!

[@rudeone4life]

I've been inside a BUFF and a Tu-95. Both are incredible aircraft and I have much respect for both. But I give the edge to the BUFF. Rudy USAF AMMO 81-07

[@ew1usnr]

The B-52s sang "Love Shack", 1989.

[@ДИВАННЫЙЭКСПЕРТ4]

И сбит СССР ПВО😂

[@DarrenK-dt7sx]

I got me a Tupolev that seats about twenty So come on, comrade, bring your vodka money

[@ScaleModelMayhem]

Yeah! What did the TU-95s sing??

[@PointyTailofSatan]

There's two things I didn't expect to hear in one sentence; B-52 and photo recon.

[@veritasfiles]

Pretty clear it's the B-52 without the new upgrades, and after the upgrades it pretty much not a question.

[@bettyswunghole3310]

The TU-95 is an interesting and typically Soviet "rough and ready" aircraft, but in terms of performance and utility there's no real comparison with the B-52.

[@anthonyb5279]

This rough and ready idea of yours is a myth. They’re made like shit. They fly like shit.

[@bettyswunghole3310]

@@anthonyb5279 Judging by your irritation levels, I guess you just had a pretty rough shit.

[@jayscott8583]

Rough and ready to what be grounded or crash?

[@Ferda1964]

Production logistics and overall coast are an essential factor as well.

[@ZebraAfrica]

Tu 95 is more interesting with what it achieves with turboprops. I would pick the B 52 for the air force.

[@wolfshanze5980]

Having a stick with a porcupine attached to it is more interesting than an AK-47... but I'd much rather have an AK-47 in a battle than a stick with a porcupine attached to it.

[@chrislj2890]

The turboprops of the Bear may have its drawbacks, but I sure do love the sound.

[@garycombs5721]

When the B-52 was first produced it truly epitomized the cliche of being ahead of its time.

[@djordjelezajic8435]

I guess both planes serve it' s purpose, with the obvious trade offs when it comes to performance. Next week I would like to see the comparison between the " White Swan" TU - 160 , and the best the USA has to offer. Thank you very much in advance.

[@bricefleckenstein9666]

B-1 would be the closest to the TU-160 if I remember what that is correctly.

[@catjudo1]

Those same Kuznetsov engines and contra-rotating props were used on the Tu 114 Rossiya airliner, itself based on the Tu 95. It remains the world's largest turboprop airliner and was the largest airliner in the world until the introduction of the Boeing 747. This airplane carried Nikita Khrushchev to the United States in 1959 and was a hit with aviation enthusiasts at the time.

[@bricefleckenstein9666]

Also refer to the TU-116.

[@aacvieira]

Thinking about attrition war, efficiency wins. Undoubtedly.

[@northseawolf]

B-52 is a beast but i also dig the contra rotating props on the bear

[@samuelweir5985]

You would get really, really exhausted with hearing those contra-rotating props after the first 15 minutes. They're incredibly loud.

[@unvaxxeddoomerlife6788]

Hearing protection exists for a reason.

[@kenmtb]

​@@samuelweir5985

[@randieandjodistrom854]

A respectable attempt to suggest there's some parity between the B-52 and the TU-95. Although there's parity in some features, e.g., speed and range, as a heavy bomber the key factor is payload, and the B-52 has almost twice the payload of the TU-95. Mic drop.

[@TheSMR1969]

Tu-95MSM is far more modern, fly by wire, glass cockpit, powerful digital data link, powerful computers with C4ISTAR software, phased array radars and a far more modern bomb computer. Have to wait for B-52J to catch up

[@grumpusmaximus9446]

​@@TheSMR1969 Everything you know about the B-52 is outdated information...... now about that nearly doubled payload capability

[@mithridatesii6925]

@@TheSMR1969 Yes like everyone knows Russia is the best when it comes to computers, Russians made computers then after 50 years Americans even heard about computers

[@TheSMR1969]

@@grumpusmaximus9446 no its not. Again the B-52 hasn't been updated (its last major upgrade was in 60s). It only had a basic electronics update in 80-90s. The B-52J will bring it to modern standard. It's not comparable to the Tu-95MSM at all

[@TheSMR1969]

@@mithridatesii6925 cope

[@richardguardiani8326]

It depends upon the mission. Military experts can select mission profiles that make either bomber superior to the other.

[@StevenDCave]

During my cruise aboard the Nimitz aircraft carrier in 1985 every morning at exactly 8:00 am two Russian TU-95’s would do a low-level pass over the Nimitz.

[@oakspines7171]

I think it was some big naval exercise when the US got close to the USSR ? The Middle East ? I think the Soviet had a major Soviet Ocean 86 in the Sea of Oskhotsk that the US carrier was also there to monitor ? You were with the Nimitz so Asia was more likely.

[@jimdennis2451]

Yeah, we were heading to Desert Shield/Storm and in the western Pacific we would get buzzed by a Bear. You could even hear it from inside the superstructure.

[@jonwalter6317]

The re-engining of the B-52s will not only significantly increase the range, but also reduce the noise level, for what it is worth.

[@leeroywolphagen8451]

The TU-95 dropped and detonated the biggest bomb men ever created, the tsar bumba and the crew barely made out of the blast. I just thought it was very fascinating

[@themuckler8176]

Yes....we watched the video

[@Marc816]

That TU-95 was 28 miles away from the tsar bomba when it exploded. The TU-95 was almost blown out of the sky

[@rolomaticz5009]

A clear example of how the USSR over doped the tritium after we did it at castle bravo. The pilot / crew almost died and received 10X lifetimes of radiation. They accidentally destroyed an entire town of 3 story buildings and dislocated thousands of citizens. That's not fascinating, it's just downright stupid and it seriously ramped up the cold war.

[@jonesmorales-tu6kq]

​@@Marc816lies !

[@donscheid97]

Comparing drastically different aircraft is a bit unfair because they were built by obviously different generals and engineers to answer their ideas of what was needed and how to achieve it. The real question is, did they achieve the goal that was needed. And here, I think we can say that both did, how that works for the future is another matter because the needs are ever changing.

[@WarGasm0824]

Wow I always thought thought the Bear had a larger payload, the F-15E Strike Eagle can carry 4,500 lbs more that it can. That is a crazy difference in the fact the Buff can carry double that of what the TU-95 does.

[@marshalljulie3676]

It carries 40000 pounds not 4500

[@sezwo5774]

Tupolev was built as a defensive weapon, ...to carry a very light nuclear load therefore no need for jet engines. The B52 was designed as an offensive weapon to carry out American attacks around the world using heavy conventional weaponry and regular bombs. Both are still good at what they were designed for, that's why both are still in service.

[@ДИВАННЫЙЭКСПЕРТ4]

А сбит СССР ПВО😂

[@ThomasGellos-e6v]

​@@marshalljulie3676hahaha he had me for a second

[@racing_mntage1584]

Umm go through the specs once more good sir

[@ArtVanAuggie]

I have seen both the light show, the earth shaking sound, and the utter devastation of an ArcLight mission. There ain't nothing like a flight of Buffs.

[@stevenfrederick2315]

It's obvious that the American Made Boeing B-52 Is Way far more Superior Technology than the Russian TU95!

[@RahulPandey-d2l]

☠️☠️Russian Bear☠️☠️

[@AHille444]

I thought the TU-95 had a giant canon sticking out of its nose when I first saw it.

[@salvatorepitea5862]

@@AHille444 that is for the midair refueling

[@Marc816]

B52, a jet, top speed: 660 MPH. TU-95, A turboprop, top speed 575 MPH. B52, maximum altitude: 50,000 feet. TU-95, maximum altitude, 45,000 feet. Let the specs speak for themselves.

[@Rickyboricky]

Both capable of launching ALCMs.

[@p8ryot]

The Buff is an amazing aircraft. I was a loader in TAC, (78-92) never had the privilage of loading one like the SAC guys. However they spent much more time in the monthly load barn visits.

[@albert85b]

Contra rotation props, incredibly loud, weirdly swept wings - the bear is the BOSS

[@alanstevens1296]

Both have a similar range and cruising speed (TU-95 is about 10% slower). Big difference in payload capacity, the TU-95 is a lot less but still is massive and can carry a number of large bombs and missiles. The B-52 looks a lot sleeker and more modern (and it did in the 1960s when I first compared them). Turboprops look somewhat ungainly but those on TU-95 are massive with each having 15,000 SHP and two propellers. Both very capable strategic heavy bombers, both then and today.

[@bricefleckenstein9666]

Both in current configurations CUBE OUT long before they reach their limit on payload mass. TU-95 payload is understated, one DID carry the Tsar Bomba (60,000 pounds appx) with only the payload doors being modified (the bomb DID NOT FIT inside) so it could carry it partly in partly under.

[@alex3261]

It’s worth mentioning that 31 B-52s were shot down in Vietnam.

[@srisairampraveenganisetti]

Lol yes

[@realdreamerschangetheworld7470]

How many Tu-95s were in Vietnam?

[@JudgeVandelay]

So what?

[@riccccccardo]

Really I never knew it’s never mentioned .

[@serbia991]

​@@realdreamerschangetheworld7470zero

[@antoniogramsci8217]

Why not to compare B-52 to T-160 White Swan?

[@stevecastro1325]

1:08 Range is irrelevant with inflight refueling. It’s just up to the endurance of the crew.

[@qzztv3]

And the amount of oil the engines use.

[@cpt0118]

B52 was upgraded with the most modern gadgets

[@StevenxGray]

The Buff every day of the week and twice on Sundsy for me.

[@stacosaurus]

What could (or does) Tu-95 make(s) better is its unit cost, it’s like 3 or 4 Tu-95s over one B-52

[@timfreeman3826]

That's America for ya. We wait 10 extra yrs and pay 10x the amount decided on.

[@randym7961]

how can you possible compare the cost of anything built in America to something made in russia just to get you started the average wage in russia is around 700 US dollars a month .. Add to that we have our own high tech industry Russia relies on western high tech .. You should be able to take it from there

[@randym7961]

@@timfreeman3826 just as couple examples of many many examples the US first Stealth aircraft first entered service in the 1980s, Russia still doesn't have one ! How many actual Aircraft Carriers are in the Russian navy 0 , the US has 20 --11 Super Carriers and 9 assault carriers . Having served I am glad the US spends what it does on the tools we need to fight with.. I can tell by your comment you haven't served

[@stacosaurus]

@@randym7961 You know... money values are different too in different countries, if Russian tanks were built in America they would obviously be higher in unit cost because the standards for the engineers and other workers are different, and same the other way around.

[@randym7961]

@@stacosaurus Very true but most don't actually think about it

[@tgsgardenmaintenance4627]

Both are excellent platforms and will be around for a long time to come! Detectability is irrelevant, as Both can launch standoff weapons from far beyond any air defence systems!

[@Kajak80]

This is false.

[@ogieoteghekpen7874]

Do not forget that the Tu-95 bear was introduced after the B-52. That made its engineers to consider some of the characteristics of the B-52 in manufacturing the Tu-95 bear. It can still be used to launch another Tsar Bomba.

[@BenWilson-cp6ld]

I bet Grandpa Buff will be the first of the two to get lazer weapons. And drone escorts.

[@jefferyduffey5056]

And photon torpedoes

[@hiddenmagnum9590]

I'm not even military and i know that NOBODY says "fellow" for that last F😂

[@larrybremer4930]

For both its interesting that pilots can see that a grandparent flew that same aircraft in the logbook. Some of these planes will be 100 years old when they retire.

[@andreww1225]

Tu95 is loud enough to make someone deaf.

[@heromail2903]

The Tu 95 has never involved in major wars like in Vietnam

[@jonesmorales-tu6kq]

That's because Russia is not a bully

[@essaidchibane6612]

Tu 95 is famous of being the only aircraft that dropped a 100MT thermonuclear bomb from 11000M of altitude, namely Tsar Bomba. Nb: the bomb was modified and generated a power of 58 MT.

[@MrMcGiblets1]

One is faster and can carry almost twice as much as the other for nearly the same distance. That one is better.

[@briangriffin2905]

Two iconic aircraft.

[@scotte2815]

No One iconic plane And one POS

[@frankmccann29]

B-52. Although, I've always thought the Bear was cool.

[@sammcbride2464]

I think it is interesting that the US disabled the ailerons on the B-52 to save the airframe wings. They now only use speed brakes to lean the plane.

[@chrisberlin1552]

Well, the payload, noise, and radar signature comparisons obviously put the B-52 on top. Those are the most important other than range and they’re virtually the same on that.

[@charles6952]

Without watching for one second. Answer, B-52.

[@gordonallen9095]

The Tupolev is nothing but a reverse engineered B-29 which the airframe is based on. The B-52 was a revolutionary airframe for the time it was introduced. Upgrades over the decades have made it even more formidable. The range of the B-52 due to its air refueling capabilities gives it a truly global reach. The TU-95 is a good recon aircraft, and effective as a combat aircraft using standoff munitions like cruise missiles. The B-52 excels at nuclear strategic bombing, carpet bombing, as well as deploying standoff munitions. Even with upgrades, the Bear is dated. The BUFF however, is aging like "fine wine." Both still have a place in air combat for the 21st Century. A testament to the design and versatility of both airframes.

[@kipschwanenberg4934]

The TU-95 has swept wings, the B-29 (TU-4) did not. When the B-29 was copied in the Soviet Union it became the TU-4 The TU-95 may have some features you may think is similar to the B-29, it was a totally new design not reversed engineered. The TU-95 has been upgraded for air to air refueling.

[@mkyhou1160]

@@kipschwanenberg4934it’s an evolved B29

[@ПётрКовалев-ж1п]

Я прочитал рекламный буклет.

[@bricefleckenstein9666]

Wrong aircraft. That was the Tu-4.

[@bricefleckenstein9666]

@@mkyhou1160 It's a LOT more than that. It would be more fair to compare it to some of the "X" versions that Boeing came up with for the B-52 before the Air Force decided "make the B-52 all jets", as the turboprop versions were not offering a lot more than the B-36 later versions offered.

[@kpadalldotablet1009]

Submarines hear the TU-95 coming -- when submersed.

[@n4lra1]

Sticking only to how badass and intimidating the two aircraft look, B52 is clearly the winner.🙀

[@oleksandrprokhorov2104]

Ту-95, definitely - my father’s one! 💥

[@CriminalOverPoweringSocietyCOP]

The canon in the back door was bad ass

[@michaelwilliams8297]

I've never seen a tu-95 in flight. The AN-225 was very impressive though

[@bricefleckenstein9666]

I've never seen the straight Bear in flight, but I (and pretty much any other US carrier sailor) has seen the marine varient on WestPac.

[@SimanSlivar]

The problem is what they are made for and how they are used. While the b52 has many advantages. The bear has much greater overall efficiency. It can get bombs on target at close too half the price of the 52... While thats not the only measurement of a bomber, when they are used as a bomb truck its a significant issue in the comparison. The 52 air frames are also so old they cost about half that of a b2... Even the B1 technically is cheaper and has more capabilities than the b52, but there are many senators that have b52s in their respective districts... The bear also has significant advantages in thicker air of the territory it operates in and around. My overall assessment of the two airframes are this question: what is more valuable for the flag it flys under. The bear overall wins out becuse of its significant airframe costs and it's operational costs. The b52 looses mainly do to its operational costs and airframe hours. BUT the US can afford to keep operating them. Its a similar story to the m1 abrams tanks. In reality they suck becuase they cost too much to operate. But the US can afford to throw money into the fire to keep them alive. Bear is vastly cheaper. B52 has more capabilities, but only slightly at a significant cost increase.

[@Dannysoutherner]

Both great planes. Props are much more efficient at lower speeds, jets more so at high speeds.

[@bricefleckenstein9666]

Yet there is a world aircraft speed record over 600 MPH for a Bear varisnt. Fastest turboprop - and that was on the TU-114 (airliner version) with MUCH more drag due to the much larger diameter fusalage. Seems like those props work pretty well at speed ranges normally considered "jet territory".

[@BarryHoffman-g4o]

B-52 have dropped bombs on enemy's on several occasions. The TU-95 has only done bombing tests.

[@greatndit]

TU-95 never been used en masse

[@Tigr_Rus]

Конечно нет, потому-что Россия в отличии от сша не бомбила десятки стран!😉 Но если он будет использоваться - вы об этом узнаете!🤣

[@bricefleckenstein9666]

@@Tigr_Rus Afghanistan and Ukraine (TWICE) will argue that point.

[@Tigr_Rus]

@@bricefleckenstein9666 в Афганистане и на украине, Российские бомбардировщики применялись - точечно. Это были не ковровые бомбардировки так любимые сша и нато!😉

[@bricefleckenstein9666]

@@Tigr_Rus I don't read Cryllic.

[@Tigr_Rus]

@@bricefleckenstein9666 Ак как же ты прочитал предыдущий комментарий?🤣 Click on the "translate" button!😉

[@22fret]

I don't care which one is better, but the Tu-95 is the more elegant by miles...

[@robertyancy4216]

If these 2 ever have to do their "job", it would not matter to those below which is better, right!

[@mladenmatosevic4591]

Both are now missile launch platforms against anyone with air defense. You can't expect them to drop gravity bombs if AA launcher stands near target.

[@benjamintowns9798]

A submarine can hear a bear submerged.

[@Holland41]

Both aircraft are dinosaurs. Big slow targets. Neither has ever been tested in a combat scenario where the opponent had truly high-tech, modern defences, except perhaps the B52 over Hanoi.

[@mojoe6396]

very true

[@coyoteeffect]

eh, B-52s launched the first shots of Desert Storm, but credit where credit's due, they never got _close_ to Iraq, they just launched long-range missiles from a safe distance

[@BenWilson-cp6ld]

If they both showed their ultimate abilities it wouldn't matter which is better. Most of us would be dead or wishing we were.

[@kmarks97236]

That last F doesn’t stand for fellow 😂😂

[@lisah9394]

You can dance to the B-52's! Rock Lobstaaaaah!

[@Old_B52H_Gunner]

I really miss flying in the BUFF.

[@jockauld3966]

Both are obsolete, depending on who you are fighting, of course?

[@poohbear501]

Thanks to the USAF refueling wings, the buff doesn't have a range limit. I'm just saying.

[@bricefleckenstein9666]

Same for the Bear - and pretty much ANY major military aircraft of the modern era.

[@willyphast2509]

like an old chevrolet. this big bird gets better with age. and she earned her strips,,

[@ericbitzer5247]

I gotta go with the bear. But I'm a sucker for turboprops especially counter rotating.

[@andrewhicks982]

with out loud/large the TU-95 is an Aim-120/260 could hit it from max distance. Probably wouldn't even realize it was shot at based on how antiquated it is.

[@bryanpetersen1334]

Seems a little odd to compare these drastically different bombers, except they are the biggest of either country. The B52 can deliver twice the ordnance, that is a whole different class of plane.

[@bricefleckenstein9666]

Nope. BOTH aircraft cube out before they hit payload MASS limits - even when the TU-95 was used to carry the Tsar Bomba (60,000 pounds) the mods were made to the payload doors because the bomb was too big of diameter.

[@tomlobos2871]

the bear has a radar signature from hell. generally speaking, the B-52 is a more advanced concept and has better options for modern upgrades.

[@williamgrand9724]

The Bear looks like my cat when I scrunch her chin up to her face...

[@jawedmanowar657]

In terms of heavy Bomber and Huge Range and payload B52 standouts and since its jet powered its speedy also main point Russia should also have developed an low speed bomber like B52

[@Tigr_Rus]

Зачем России разрабатывать такой бомбардировщик в 21 веке? Наши ракеты долетают до сша за 30 минут!😉

[@michaelwong4303]

Um....There was never any need for such comparison. The mighty B52 is and will always be superior to the Tu.....

[@piton8888]

both planes are just "trucks" for air-launched cruise missiles they launch them from so far away from enemy territory, that is does not matter how stealth or fast they are that's why there was no need to replace them with more modern planes so its not about the planes, its about weapons they carry and the Russian X-101/102 has a much longer range, than the American AGM-86 ALCM

[@jonathanmckeage8222]

Ones a really good distraction tool

[@mikea.6608]

B52 is far superior. But ive always loved the look of the "bear" 🤷🏾‍♂️

[@marshalljulie3676]

The bear has longer range. Plus there's been various upgrades this video doesn't do it justice 😂

[@ДИВАННЫЙЭКСПЕРТ4]

Не забывай В сбила СССР ракета

[@delten-eleven1910]

Those 4 huge contra-props have a menacing sound I wish to hear.

[@Kajak80]

How far exactly? As your boasting?

[@guardiaguardia3017]

Prices, please??

[@stlpaulie]

Range isn’t a consideration thanks to in air refueling. The BUFF can stay aloft so long as the crew has food and the crew can rest

[@Biyoung]

sad with the watermark right in the video

[@angelofjustice913]

When it comes to military and military only an American made is always superior in the technology and the design

[@Dweller415]

They’re both mission capable but the U.S. isn’t hesitant to use the B52 for conventional weapons.

[@mikewaterfield3599]

Was that a serious question? The TU 95 is so loud submarines can track them while submerged. The buff is has outlived her detractors literally.

[@acdc6989]

Is a B52 more "calm" than a Tu95, really ?!

[@Bonitacreekrcs]

B-52! All day

[@johnulmer6715]

They're both a million years old, so I'd say they're both pretty good planes and stable platforms.

[@kevinkerlin5603]

For a prop bladed aircraft 500 plus miles an hour is impressive considering its weight imo.

[@bricefleckenstein9666]

The TU-114 airliner variant holds the world record for "fastest turboprop" and "fastest prop-driven aircraft".

[@lulutileguy]

great big toolbox with wings the 52

[@kentleytaggart5816]

B52 is the best but the 95 is no joke

[@bradolsen8629]

👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

[@ДИВАННЫЙЭКСПЕРТ4]

Америку сбил СССР ПВО😂

[@bradolsen8629]

@@ДИВАННЫЙЭКСПЕРТ4 would it be difficult for you to translate please Russians

[@kaimanwhite8763]

​@@ДИВАННЫЙЭКСПЕРТ4 And US missiles shot down USSR aircraft in afghanistan. What's your point

[@filippozoncada3660]

Agree

[@jldonnell1]

Well, let's see; one has eight jet engines and one is made by Tupelev... hmmm, that's a real head scratcher.

[@CJ-xl3dh]

Tu95 is way better. It's a loud beauty and work of timeless art.

[@jdluntjr76226]

It’s ugly

[@CJ-xl3dh]

@@jdluntjr76226 Naah fella beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Structurally the B52 is more odd; look at the undercarriage and fact it needs wheels on the wing tips.