Designed around the same time, for the same purpose, by countries on opposing sides of the Cold War, both the B-52 Stratofortress and Tu-95 Bear are some of oldest aircraft still in use with their original operators.
And whilst other aircraft have come and gone out of service with the US Air Force and Soviet Air Forces (later Russian Aerospace Forces), the versatility of these two aircraft have seen them continue to be used, even as the nature of their roles have changed considerably.
So which of these old bombers is the best?
B-52 vs Tu-95: The Basics
Before we can begin comparing the two bombers to one another, we must first understand the background that led to their development, and the basics of the two aircraft’s objectives.
Boeing B-52 Stratofortress
Tupolev Tu-95 “Bear”
B-52 vs Tu-95: Upgrades
Boeing B-52 Stratofortress
Tupolev Tu-95 “Bear”
B-52 vs Tu-95: Operational Service
Boeing B-52 Stratofortress
Tupolev Tu-95 “Bear”
B-52 vs Tu-95: Specs
| Specifications | Boeing B-52H | Tupolev Tu-95MS |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 159 ft 4 in (48.5 m) | 151 ft 7 in (46.2 m) |
| Wingspan | 185 ft (56.4 m) | 164 ft 4 in (50.1 m) |
| Height | 40 ft 8 in (12.4 m) | 39 ft 9 in (12.12 m) |
| Crew | 5 | 6-7 |
| Cruise Speed | 819 km/h (509 mph; 442 kn) | 710 km/h (440 mph; 380 kn) |
| Range | 16,327 km (10,145 mi; 8,816 nmi) | 15,000 km (9,300 mi; 8,100 nmi) |
| Service Ceiling | 50,000 ft (15,000 m) | 45,000 ft (13,716 m) |
| MTOW | 488,000 lb (219,600 kg) | 414,469 lb (188,000 kg) |
| Armament | – Approximately 70,000 lb (31,500 kg) mixed ordnance – 1 × 20 mm (0.787 in) M61 Vulcan (formerly; removed 1991) | – 2 × 23 mm (0.906 in) Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23 autocannon – 8 × Kh-101/102 cruise missiles mounted on underwing pylons |
B-52 vs Tu-95: Economics
As both aircraft are quite old, both the B-52 and Tu-95 are costing more and more to keep in the skies each year, as they require more and more maintenance to remain airworthy.
Boeing B-52 Stratofortress
Tupolev Tu-95 “Bear”
B-52 vs Tu-95: Avgeek Opinions
As always, I sat down with a group of avgeeks – the community of people with a strong interest in aviation who usually don’t work in the field – to discuss this topic, leading to what can best be described as a screaming match befitting of politicians.
To avoid any biases from the Cold War/East vs West mentality, my group of avgeeks was comprised of people both from the East and from the West, and whose political views ranged from conservative to communist and everything in between.
Overwhelmingly, however, the consensus seemed to be that the B-52 was the superior aircraft.
Their main arguments centered around the fact that the B-52 is an icon, recognized and feared the world over whilst the Tu-95 is not, and that it is nothing short of deadly at its favored high altitudes.
That being said, many adamant supporters of the B-52 did acknowledge that at low altitudes, the Tu-95 has the clear advantage thanks to its unrivalled speed and range for an aircraft its size.
Supporters of the Tu-95 were also to point out that in its nearly 70 year-long operational history, the Tu-95 has caused NATO-aligned governments around the world to spend billions on new air defense systems as Tu-95s were regularly testing their response times.
One even recounted a story of how when President Eisenhower sent U-2s over Soviet air bases on reconnaissance flights, he was surprised to learn than the Tu-95 was the USSR’s primary bomber, not the Myasishchev M-4 (code name: Bison) as he’d thought.
The only thing both sides could agree on was that replacing either or both aircraft would be as tragic for the aviation community as it would for the militaries’ spending, as a replacement would likely cost much more than keeping either aircraft airworthy.
B-52 vs Tu-95? Who do you think would win? Tell me in the comments!
I have read that the TU-95 is the noisiest airplane ever built. Apparently the Russians do not value crew comfort. One advantage of being a TU-95 crew member may be that since the bomber is a capital asset, your life gets to be more valuable than a regular Russian soldier’s because the hardware is valuable and they need the crew to keep the bomber safe (World War II was won on American arms and Russian bodies). With its huge counterrotating propellers andlong sleek body it must be an awewome presence in the sky (altough probably easy to shoot down?), and I personally think it is esthetically more beautiful than the B-52 (“BUF” — Big Ugly F***er). And wasn’t it designed by Gulag inmates?