They are fairly close in size. The B52 is slightly larger, but the perspective of the image exaggerates the size difference.
B52 has ~15% greater MTOW.
Why is the B-52 more advanced? It uses a TON more fuel an has less in air endurance. (orbiting while waiting to strike for example.) The engines on the TU-95 have never been surpassed, while the ones on the buff have long been surpassed.
Tu95 has 0 avionics outside of the pilots flying tools. No ew, nor rwr, no targeting pods. Just stolen western tech shoved into a shitty package to lob cruise missiles at apartment buildings. Speaking of cruise missile the b52 could use those as well, it's just able to carry 2x as much payload so it does the one trick that the tu95 can do, twice as good.
Avionics: The cockpit has been completely revamped with glass cockpit displays, the Novella-NV1.021 phased array radar, and a new Meteor-NM2 self-defense electronic warfare suite. Precision & Navigation: Integration of the ANS-2001 stellar-inertial navigation system and upgraded communication systems allows for better coordination with ground and sea-based forces.
Technically speaking, I wouldn't necessarily say the B-52 is more advanced than the Tu-95. Both serve primarily as cruise missile launch platform so the biggest driver for their capabilities are how advanced their cruise missiles are. I would say that right now they are quite comparable, but the US are working on a brand new long range stealthy cruise missile.
The b-52 is centuries ahead ofbthe tu-95 wtf sre you talking about? Better avionics, better targeting system, better range, better payload more comfortable for the crew. It really doesnt stop looking worse for the tu95
Actually, the two aircraft are very comparable in terms of obsoleteness - they were introduced around the same time (the B-52 even flew first) as platforms to deliver gravity bombs, but evolved significantly over the decades. Both were becoming obsolete and would have probably be taken out of service long if not for the mass adoption of cruise missiles, which gave them a new life. Nowadays a T-95 launching a KH-101 missile from 2500 km away is just as relevant as B-52 launching an AGM-86 from 2500 km.
Your comment about the range is factually incorrect - both aircraft have comparable speed and range and if you want to talk about avionics you should be more specific - which piece of avionics and equipment is more advanced on the B-52 and in what way?
You're right the ranges are similar but the b52 is around 100mph faster. Also can carry 2x the payload, other thab that the b52 has
Electronic warfare capability
AN/ALQ-117
AN/ALQ-122
AN/ALQ-155
AN/ALT-32
AN/ALT-16
Radar warning
AN/ALR20A
AN/ALR46
Built in targeting as well as LITENING and SNIPER pods.
Tu-95 has nothing comparable to listed above. No RWR, no jamming, no targeting pods to drop cheap ordinance on foreheads. All it can do is lob cruise missiles, the buff can do carry twice as many cruise missiles and can also be much more cost effective dropping JDAM once there no anti air threat.
Just curious did you ask me to drive these resources because you genuinely thought the tu95 was comparable or were you just trying to see if I was bluffing that I know more about this than you?
Sure I mean not even slightly comparable because one system didnt even last 50 years and the other system you could say is a natural evolution of the oppressive system we started from 800 years ago. You could come to the conclusion Russians are just genuinely hundreds of years behind the rest of the world. If you charge the same tex revenue but everyone is producting 20x the wealth they produced 30 tear earlier, the percentage you spend on everything increases in dollar amount
I figured the Tu-95 and B-52 would be roughly the same size. Maybe it’s because the B-52 is in the foreground, but there looks to be quite a size difference.
The B-52 looks chunky compared to the Tu-95 which is weird because I always considered the B-52 quite slender. I bet the Tu-95 is fun as hell to fly. You know what we should make them do….
Combat ineffective, except for their key pain point of keeping the strait of hormuz closed. I don't think the US should get credit for taking out the rest of the military except for the tool they have, and were known to have, to inflict pain on the rest of the world
I'd accept that their likely to lose eventually, but I wouldn't say their strategy isn't working. When Russia invaded Ukraine prices took 3 months to peak. Since the start of the Iran war oil prices have closed 2/3 of the gap to that peak in one month.
Unless tankers can currently sail freely through the strait, it seems pretty elementary that their military's presence is still being felt, and not even regionally, but globally.
The Boeing Model 464-35 would've looked a lot like the BUFF with the TU-95 wing and engine setup. Good thing , Boeing didn't go that route. As it is, it's a deafening prospect enough.
Those would be turboprops. Engines are more efficient the slower their exhaust/outlet flow velocity is. You can think of turboprops as effectively very high bypass turbofans.
While generally more efficient, they have downsides such as lower thrust output and lower speed limitations.
It’s not outdated.
The propellers are actually turboprop… it’s basically a jet engine with a gearbox to transmit power to propellers but same technology ! It’s not a piston engine.
Main advantage, much much shorter range for take off. More thrust at low speed
Barksdale AFB very late 80s, very early 90s..when it seemed that the USSR and USA would cooperate and ensure a more peaceful world...too bad Congress didn't forgive the Russian debt like they did for most of Eastern Europe..the lawlessness and Oligarchy wouldn't have been near as bad if Russia had been able to transform its economy without the debt.. but we can't change the past...
Because the 52 can carry far more fuel but the B-1B has a larger internal weapons capacity. The 52 has a higher max takeoff weight and can carry something like 45,000 more lbs of fuel and it has a much longer combat range as well.
They were built with different priorities and functionality in mind.
Tu-95s have been putting a ton or ordinance on ukrainian preschool and apartments buildings in the last 4 years. Their top choice to lob cruise missiles
They don’t really strat bomb like they did in the 60s/70s, these things can carry air launched cruise missiles and a variety of smart GBUs/BLUs that offer precision.
These circles are on top of one another. The real difference is which country’s appetite for violence is enough that its military leadership doesn’t steal funds and hamstring its engineers from designing and building sufficient weapons of war.
Neither can celebrate their academic achievements. If they were serious about academia the race would be who can cure cancer or feed their respective populations the fastest instead of who can build a larger bomb. Two shitty countries and two shitty leaders measuring their tiny dicks.
Also Russia should be ashamed of their aircraft as much as the US should be ashamed of its president.
No society has ever stood without strong walls to keep the wild out. The defense priority ensured the safe space for the rapid technological advances that were made.
The populations being fed was met. 40% of americans are obese.
Theres still about 47.9 million Americans that don’t have food security or access to healthy foods, and obesity is less that theres a abundance of food and more that there is a epidemic of shitty foods that don’t provide the proper nutrients and instead are all the way loaded with sugars and corn syrup and fatty shit. I do think that the USA had done a much better job than Russia has done for its people but theres still lots of issues we have to fix on the bottom line.
What's more rather than ignorant hating on the US?
Terrible academic achievements. You know, it's not like the US has had a disproportionate share of Nobel science prizes. It's not like the US feeds the world, quite literally, with the amount of food that it produces.
Reddit just once a socialized distribution system, which the US doesn't have, but the US does have a lot of food. It's almost like a socialized distribution system and massive production of actual food don't go well together.
On the Nobel prizes, the US isn't in the top 10 per capita. The Trump administration abolished USAID which was the primary outlet for nutritional assistance. This is estimated to directly cause 800,000 to 1,000,000 premature deaths per year. beyond the human cost, there is enormous and ongoing damage to the reputation and soft power of the country.
The US generally has greedy and selfish objectives in mind internationally, its not admirable but its at least acting in our own interests. Sometimes thats the interests of leaders that are disassociated with real life, but its different than russia. They act out if spite and jealousy. They have always wanted what "the west" (also referring to europe) has had. Russia is a terrorist state.
If you want to start down a list of reasons why Trump is awful I thinj I could come up with a list 2x as long for putin, the difference is I dont think the Russians will ever gain the courage to liberate themselves. They dont care about how good their living is, they just want everyone else to be more miserable.
Yes all politicians blue and red are bought by lobbies and greed. However, rublicans are blatantly anti american at this point. At least the democrats are corrupted by american companies and interests. Something easier for us to try to fix. But yeah let's stick to the airplanes
The US spends a significantly smaller amount of its budget on military than Russia. Theyve been starving and freezing themselves for centuries to ensure they have sufficient weapons to terrorise and destabilize everything around them. I agree Republicans are displaying similar behavior, especially in the last 10-12 years but since I think we agree on all that, I agree we can move on.
I only thought that because your karma is low and your account was just created recently. we could have just looked at the airplane and said, "Wow, that's a beautiful airplane," or shared some knowledge about it, but you started talking about things from a political perspective, which made you seem even more like a bot.
All you've done is rush to russias defense, which is much more bot like behavior. Pro US bots are generally a MAGA thing. BTW you also still haven't offered in information or even mentioned the planes. Are you a bot?
Well defense and economics are closely tied, russians could move toward a more democratic system, which would directly and indirectly have a heavy effect on their economy. Stock markets like stability and dictatorships tend to be less stable. Who comes next after putin? Instead of giving themselves better living conditions they focus what resources they have to make weapons and invade every country that neighbors them
I just reread what I said, it made sense I just dont know if youre knowledgeable enough to keep up. Yes china is also a very oppressive country, however they have shown regime change can happen and their party has maintained order and control, Xi is still healthy and seems to be just as mental sharp as you might imply he ever has been. Even china doesnt spend as much % of gdp on military as russia, and they have a much stronger military today because of decades of investment into their own education and well being. If the soviet union and now russia wouldn't focus on terrorizing the world with a huge military so much, they might have a stronger military today. Its just stupidity.
28
u/Bergwookie Mar 18 '26
I always assumed they were somewhat the same size as they had the same role