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
Жыл бұрын
And right now russians use this weapon to kill civilians in Ukraine. Just for fun.
@Aitelly
Жыл бұрын
@Fibosssdvc Inc
@JimmySaulGoodmanMcGill1960
Жыл бұрын
@@stonesore4583 it's very fun actually 😊
@НиколайКузин-в7о
Жыл бұрын
Щщззддддддджлж0
@mauribonada2425
Жыл бұрын
@@Aitelly other issue that must be corrected is the coma [ , ] instead of point [ . ] in the international sistem or metric sistem.
@INFILTRATOR2008
Жыл бұрын
The Tu-95 is not a tactical but a strategic bomber
@barrel1885
Жыл бұрын
It depends on whether the Tu-95 carries nuclear-armed or conventional missiles
@INFILTRATOR2008
Жыл бұрын
@@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
Жыл бұрын
@@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
Жыл бұрын
@@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
Жыл бұрын
@@barrel1885 conventional missiles can also be used for strategic purposes, like you see in ukraine
@StrayCatOrwell
Жыл бұрын
“Why is it still in service?” Same reason the B-52 is; it works and performs the mission. Nothing else to be said.
@Walkercolt1
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
@@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
Жыл бұрын
@@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
Жыл бұрын
@@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
Жыл бұрын
The B52 is old but the TU-95 is archaic and frankly no longer relevant really...
@Romir0s
Жыл бұрын
"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
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
@@Aitelly All Tu-95 ins service is MS variant which means airframes from 1984 and beyond. Idiot.
@vova_ermak
Жыл бұрын
This is not a bomber, this is a strategic missile carrier.
@user-ww4od4jl1f
Жыл бұрын
@vovaermak3392 *WRONG too! This is a "strategic " BUNCH OF GARBAGE.*
@Тутанхамон-х6к
8 ай бұрын
Разрабатывался этот самолет, как бомбардировщик и был им, пртом стал ракетоносцем.
@ahmadsantoso9712
25 күн бұрын
This is a pipe with wings and engines that can carry bombs or missiles.
@СтепанОсипов-г7н
Жыл бұрын
Я служил на аэродроме(обязательная служба) У нас были ту 142 , они очень похожи внешне на ту 95
@fetusofetuso2122
Жыл бұрын
Same reason the B-52 is still in service. It excels in its role
@omarb8655
Жыл бұрын
B52 dropped Nukes in over 15 accidents, B52 half of them were lost to accidents, Tu95 never had an accident.
@aflyingcowboy31
Жыл бұрын
@@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
Жыл бұрын
@@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
Жыл бұрын
@@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
5 ай бұрын
@@aflyingcowboy31 Even if the TU95 had an accidental drop, the USSR would never report it as missing, or even record it
@islm3947
Жыл бұрын
Nice technology ahead of its time
@Aitelly
Жыл бұрын
Please Subscribe
@joaogomes9405
Жыл бұрын
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
@ПолеВой-и8л
Жыл бұрын
СССР слава!!! Союзу СоветскихСоциалистических Республик!!!!!
@jerryjustice8803
Жыл бұрын
The B-52 was built-in the 1950's also. The latest versions were built some what LL after.
@Aitelly
Жыл бұрын
We should do a video on that
@ИгорьИсаков-з4р
Жыл бұрын
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 ...
@topg_napoleon5203
Жыл бұрын
Great video 🎉 looking forward for more 🔥
@Aitelly
Жыл бұрын
Will surely do.
@AnilArya51
Жыл бұрын
Nice job AiTelly
@Aitelly
Жыл бұрын
Thank You!
@dashcammer4322
Жыл бұрын
I wonder if the TU-95 has a lower heat signature than the B-52 from a rear aspect.
@Shakeelkhan-qz3ob
Жыл бұрын
Your videos are very informative and narrator explanation is absolutely awesome
@Aitelly
Жыл бұрын
Thank You🙃
@Shakeelkhan-qz3ob
Жыл бұрын
@@Aitelly i hope you will make videos on mig 21 mig 19 hawker hunter and mig 23 mig 27 etc
@АлексАлиев-ъ3г
5 ай бұрын
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.
@Wolf-rb4um
Жыл бұрын
Now we are waiting Tu-160
@Aitelly
Жыл бұрын
Ok
@FreeThePorgs
Жыл бұрын
Same reason the US still used the b-52, it works!!!! The US announced a new bomber that upgrades the b2 spirt but still years away from full production. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
@riku3716
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
@@deaddoll1361 and how many of Russia's strategic bombers has Ukraine shot down easily while they've been sending missiles Ukraine's way?
@Xilley1
Жыл бұрын
@@riku3716 1, a TU-22
@patrikhenriksson7731
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for the early christmas gift(:
@Aitelly
Жыл бұрын
Merry Christams in Advance.
@googleplex1589
Жыл бұрын
It also dropped the tsar bomb
@eduardovazquez7520
Жыл бұрын
Los sovieticos no tuvieron nunca el dinero de EEUU, lo que si tenían era creatividad inteligencia y créanme... Unos ingenieros realmente geniales!
@theconfederacyofindependen7268
Жыл бұрын
Wingspan 162.1ft (49.4m) Length 156.4ft (47.7m) Height 43.1ft (13.1m) Empty Weight 298,931lbs (135,593kg) Loaded Weight 352,107lbs (159,713kg) For the American Viewers
@wyvern1429
Жыл бұрын
De toute beauté, j'aime beaucoup
@patrickpirzer4080
Жыл бұрын
There were many attempts to replace the Tu-95 and the B-52 but they are simply indispensable.
@duanepierson4375
Жыл бұрын
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.
@blackmamba3427
Жыл бұрын
Awesome video and graphics
@Aitelly
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for the visit
@Phil-D83
Жыл бұрын
Perfect to carry cruise missiles
@strizhi6717
Жыл бұрын
This is well done ..no politics just facts. I smashed the like and sub button - well done :)
@Aitelly
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for the kind words
@Ahmed_Helmy_AH
Жыл бұрын
please add metric numbers to better understand 👍
@Aitelly
Жыл бұрын
Metric ok will do that fpor Future Videos
@Wow4ik4ik
Жыл бұрын
Tu 95 have an awesome engine sound
@valerysinitsine5949
Жыл бұрын
Why are you calling it a "tactical" bomber, when it is strategic?
@PLATINUM12x5
16 күн бұрын
old does not equal bad or outdated. but as a rule of thumb old things won't be as good.
@РоманХотабич.МизУкраіни
Жыл бұрын
Желаю каждому пилоту этих самолетов расстаться с жизнью,в ближайшее время.
@duckjoss2206
Жыл бұрын
Love this channel man keep it up
@Antagraber
5 ай бұрын
Propellers are largers than shown, this is why is so tall.
@TheMrDendelos
Жыл бұрын
i loved this video, and i already watched all your videos, but tbh i didnt fully get why this perticular bomber manages to stay relevant for over 70 years, a more in depth comparison with the b52 bomber or some other bomber from that time that retired already would have been a great addition to an otherwise great video!
@mohmoudfarah1897
Жыл бұрын
Two words: Thank you!
@ИринаП-я1у
Жыл бұрын
Неплохой самолёт.Даже при элекромагнитном импульсе будет выпалнять поставленые задачи.
@anthonymullen6300
Жыл бұрын
Great presentation ...new sub.
@Aitelly
Жыл бұрын
Thanks Also New video coming in a few Hours
@GigaBit-i2j
Жыл бұрын
01:18 the wing area actually has nothing to do with the sweep angle the wing has. The square shown in the video , with the narration, makes prople believe the area of the wing has something to do with the wing sweep, but it doesn't. 😉
@старшийсержант-л7ш
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@rsKayiira
Жыл бұрын
Great video
@sergeystaroverov1976
Жыл бұрын
B-52 Why this Boeing Nuclear Bomber from the 1950s is still in Service today?
@Aitelly
Жыл бұрын
Coming soon
@FIERCE_BEAR
Жыл бұрын
I approve of this plane.
@everTriumph
Жыл бұрын
And when it is parked up it can double as a wind turbine with enough power to light a small town.
@borischilykyn4923
Жыл бұрын
Still in service ?? The Tu-95MS flew for the first time in 1979, in the city fo Taganrog. The aircraft is basically a Navy Tu-142K and MK, modified for the Russian long range aviation. Nothing to do with the "Tu-95 Bear". The Tu-95MS entered serial production in 1981. Nothing to do with the B-52H. The Tu-95MS is only a cruise missile carrier.
@r5u26d3
Жыл бұрын
Fantastic plane, but Hopefully Ukraine knocks them all out
@m4769794
Жыл бұрын
Do you want to start a nuclear war?
@RR-zq3mk
Жыл бұрын
Shame on you for wishing death of personnel flying those planes. Reported
@Andy_Novosad
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@Meteorknite
Жыл бұрын
Its not Nato but US who gives the names in English. Mostly US military did it since 1950s
@dataknado
Жыл бұрын
seems like you chanting morning prayer
@spacecoyote6646
Жыл бұрын
You should use English measurements and metrics extra measurements so everybody can understand
@Aitelly
Жыл бұрын
Ok
@sejauhtimurdaribarat7085
Жыл бұрын
i'm not fanboy Russian, but for this one i caled Fan 'old' Machine , but very enough to make still deadly for NATO
@Aitelly
Жыл бұрын
Yes agreed
@sejauhtimurdaribarat7085
Жыл бұрын
@@Aitelly 😉👌👍
@sejauhtimurdaribarat7085
Жыл бұрын
@@Aitelly 95.5K wow....almost 100K , that awesome , well in my opinion, on the 30th video, you will reach 100K subscribers, but I hope less than 30 videos you will get 100K , and you deserve for it, Bravo Telly 👌👍😉
@Aitelly
Жыл бұрын
@@sejauhtimurdaribarat7085 Thnaks a lot for the encouragement
@pmnichols10
Жыл бұрын
Considering that stealth technology can be easily defeated both this and the B52 are just as effective as the B2 spirit for a fraction of the costs associated.
@NormBaker.
Жыл бұрын
B-52's were developed in the 50's
@Brounovskoe_Dvizhenie
Жыл бұрын
Basically for the same reason B-52 is also still in service.
@Kurio71
Жыл бұрын
Should've gone into the twin prop design
@emdowww9150
Жыл бұрын
The Tu-95 also flew for the first time in 1952, nothing really significant happened in 1955. It was until 1956 that it got accepted by the Soviet Air Force 0:46
@zerofrindz
Жыл бұрын
Easy to blow out of the sky upon detection. 👍.
@juvent.h6699
Жыл бұрын
Don't tell me to subscribe, that comes naturally.
@Aitelly
Жыл бұрын
hehehe Thanks ! one of the best comment Ever
@juvent.h6699
Жыл бұрын
@@Aitelly thank you, thanks for the great content!
@realirondude
Жыл бұрын
First flight was in 1952 as well....
@myt3734
Жыл бұрын
where is LCA tejas waiting for it
@Aitelly
Жыл бұрын
We might release near India's republic Day Both LCA Tejas and the Arjun Tank
@myt3734
Жыл бұрын
@@Aitelly excellent news
@HermesDVN
Жыл бұрын
its basicly b-59 they just keep going up maybe because making a new one would cost alot
@pyro7358
Жыл бұрын
I love all bombers, especially the big ones
@georgesheffield1580
Жыл бұрын
Same reason the B52 is still here
@milwaukeegregg
Жыл бұрын
Its as reliable as their aircraft carrier..........That's singular as in 1..............
@sejauhtimurdaribarat7085
Жыл бұрын
Telly , i still remember this video was made three months ago, do you have the Tu-160 version ??? just launch it if you have one
@carycoller3140
Жыл бұрын
I never knew this could carry passengers, other than crew.
@БорисПанчихин
Жыл бұрын
На основе Ту-95 в начале 60х годов сделали пассажирский самолёт Ту-114. Он был самым большим пассажирским самолётом в мире, вплоть до создания Боинга 747
@mbtenjoyer9487
Жыл бұрын
It’s a different variant
@carycoller3140
Жыл бұрын
@@mbtenjoyer9487 It would have to be, but I'd never heard of it.
@jannemaki-heikkila392
Жыл бұрын
Why is the B-52 still in use...no money to develope better one...same with tupolev...
@jebise1126
Жыл бұрын
it was build up to 1990 so not even that old...
@NajobNamlok
10 ай бұрын
tu-95 the fastest propeller plane 574 mph
@againstmodernworldygf4312
Жыл бұрын
I didn't saw the video but i have the answer. Well because he can still provide serious damage in Ukraine lines in high altitude and return back to his base without any damage!
@tsepheletseka5115
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
Or... B-52 is USA's version of Tu-95.
@F.O.U.N.D.E.R
Жыл бұрын
@@jerromedrakejr9332 exactly comrade
@antoniolozic1517
Жыл бұрын
@@F.O.U.N.D.E.R no. The b52 came into production 4 years before the tu95
@manwell235
Жыл бұрын
Tu-95 is also one of the loudest aircraft in service today bcos the tip of the propellers constantly creating sonic booms
@thomasmelvin1333
Жыл бұрын
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!
@cherrypoptart2001
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
_>Their roles in Ukraine are honestly how it should properly be used_ Agreed. Fuck hohols in specific! xD
@dalentoews3418
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
Our B-52's got deployed to London. You're incorrectly stating that B 52's are in Ukraine they are not.
@frjedoru4369
Жыл бұрын
I think if there is a war with NATO, the bfstro strikers will destroy it and heavy bombers like it
@Darkosa1234
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
A bit noisy though.
@samches3
Жыл бұрын
@@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
Жыл бұрын
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
@garryb374
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
@@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
Жыл бұрын
@@tomosa6880 tell me u just spam random illogical comment without any knowledge.
@haysnairte4
Жыл бұрын
@@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
Жыл бұрын
@@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?
@mandaloriancrusader6699
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
@@poleteli i hear that the kinzal can only fire from mig-31 and tu-160 cuz they are fast
@poleteli
Жыл бұрын
@@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
Жыл бұрын
@@poleteli its name zircon i think, really good tech
@za_pravdu1943
11 ай бұрын
As long as it still usefull compared to its maintain cost, then no reason to decommisioning them
@fieryjustin
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for the feedback we really aprreciate constuctive ones
@za_pravdu1943
11 ай бұрын
Their propeller are part of the engine, so yeah, it's turboprop
@thuyetphapthichphaphoamoinhat1
Жыл бұрын
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.
@agronstafa5285
Жыл бұрын
Bombarduesi më i bukur në botë i të gjithë kohërave
@notyocousin999
4 ай бұрын
It'll be in service for the next 50 years cause those Russians can't make a better plane
@hungrysurfer9471
Ай бұрын
Their military seems to be winning in Ukraine against UK and US military tech. And in the next few weeks lets see what happens with Iran and if they respond to Israels attacks last week.
@maxprivate3805
Жыл бұрын
Major props to the original designers.
@jarekw1224
Жыл бұрын
Why B52 is still in service ?
@mr.normalguy69
Жыл бұрын
AiTelly's production quality is getting better by the day.
@Aitelly
Жыл бұрын
Thanks man
@pkwithmeplease
Жыл бұрын
Its not its russian. There is nothing good quality from russia
@mr.normalguy69
Жыл бұрын
@@pkwithmeplease The AK-47 wil disagree with you.
@Toxic4262
Жыл бұрын
@@pkwithmeplease If so, why the West isn't attacking Russia yet? Because they would attack only weaker adversary. Facts .
@AlexanderTch
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
:)
@MisterSiga
Жыл бұрын
love the effort you guys put into your videos. keep it up :)
@Aitelly
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for the Support.We really Appreciate this gesture. We will keep on pruducing better videos as we moved ahead.
@Noblepilot_abrahamvwi_aeroplan
Жыл бұрын
The Tu-95 is a long range subsonic strategic bomber and not a tactical bomber.
@kingdomgateway7677
Жыл бұрын
Kh-101 has a range of 5500km.
@twogenders
9 ай бұрын
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?!
@ClaudeMagicbox
Жыл бұрын
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.
@deltacharlieromeo8252
Жыл бұрын
For sure, the Tu-95 will outlive the coming B21 Raider.
@techietisdead
Жыл бұрын
So will the b 52, its really weird and they should not be compared
@jerromedrakejr9332
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
They replace B21 after it has finished robbing taxpayers....
@LosFicosMusic
Жыл бұрын
Amazing work.. It’s mind blowing how the propellers work
@robw7676
Жыл бұрын
The RAF kept the piston engined contra-rotating prop Avro Shackleton maritime patrol & ASW aircraft (developed from the WW2 Lancaster bomber) in service until 1991 because it could reliably plod around the oceons for 14½ hours at a time without refuelling whilst hauling a large array of weapons. The TU 142 maritime version of the TU 95 can patrol for even longer. That will be a difficult aircraft for Russia to replace.
@Shakeelkhan-qz3ob
Жыл бұрын
Make video on mig 21, hawker hurricane, mig 17, mig 23 mig 29 etc
@Aitelly
Жыл бұрын
Will Do
@Shakeelkhan-qz3ob
Жыл бұрын
@@Aitelly thanks for reply
@3sides2everystory
Жыл бұрын
Fantastic video, non biased, straight up engineering marvels without the 'other team' bull shit.. subscribed 👍
@Aitelly
Жыл бұрын
Thanks 🙏👍🙏
@TheMaehan
Жыл бұрын
nah its biased as HECK!
@3sides2everystory
Жыл бұрын
@@TheMaehan please explain
@henryks1199
Жыл бұрын
Zróbcie proszę napisy w języku Polski bo nie każdy zna tak dobrze język angielski - Dziękuje i pozdrawiam z Polski
@user-fv8pi
Жыл бұрын
Go to the video CC setting, pick auto-translate function, and choose your language
@paprikar
Жыл бұрын
Thank you for such content ☺️ But can we have a metric system for weight too?
@Aitelly
Жыл бұрын
Will try
@impermanence5277
Жыл бұрын
Talk about the Hypersonic’s nuclear warheads , Russias capabilities
@hungrysurfer9471
Ай бұрын
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.
@jerromedrakejr9332
Жыл бұрын
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.
@0bserver416
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
:) good one
@richardwilliams1986
Жыл бұрын
Great, I'll put the savings toward F-22 spare parts.
Пікірлер: 1,1 М.