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!

B52 is the best but the 95 is no joke

@bradolsen8629

6 ай бұрын

👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

@user-xe5pt1or7v

5 ай бұрын

Америку сбил СССР ПВО😂

@bradolsen8629

5 ай бұрын

@@user-xe5pt1or7v would it be difficult for you to translate please Russians

@Alien-B0Y

Ай бұрын

@@user-xe5pt1or7v чё ???

@kaimanwhite8763

Ай бұрын

​@@user-xe5pt1or7v And US missiles shot down USSR aircraft in afghanistan. What's your point

Nice video!

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

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

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

6 ай бұрын

It carries 40000 pounds not 4500

@sezwo5774

5 ай бұрын

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.

@user-xe5pt1or7v

5 ай бұрын

А сбит СССР ПВО😂

@user-dv4dl9rw2p

26 күн бұрын

​@@marshalljulie3676hahaha he had me for a second

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

@srisairampraveenganisetti

6 ай бұрын

Lol yes

@realdreamerschangetheworld7470

6 ай бұрын

How many Tu-95s were in Vietnam?

@JudgeVandelay

6 ай бұрын

So what?

@riccccccardo

6 ай бұрын

Really I never knew it’s never mentioned .

@serbia991

6 ай бұрын

​@@realdreamerschangetheworld7470zero

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

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

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

@marshalljulie3676

6 ай бұрын

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

@user-xe5pt1or7v

5 ай бұрын

Не забывай В сбила СССР ракета

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

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

@user-xe5pt1or7v

5 ай бұрын

И сбит СССР ПВО😂

@DarrenK-dt7sx

28 күн бұрын

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

Can you please tell me how much the tsar bomba weight . oh I know it's 60,000 lb and the tu 95 bear is the only plane that carry it . And you said the tu95 bear can only carry 40,000 lb

@nicolas2419

22 күн бұрын

To accommodate the Tsar bomba, the Tu-95 had previously been extensively modified and lightened. The bomb bay and fuel tank doors had been removed. The flight characteristics of the aircraft, speed and range, were significantly reduced.

I’ve seen photo of TU-95 carrying Missiles look badass like carrying hotdog

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.

@im-a-mexican-knockedout-snorin

5 ай бұрын

Why do you guys make that excuse, everytime you guys say it had a different purpose but that is not the case here the bear was supposed to travel far to reach America and back. That's what everyone was striving for then and now a bomber that can travel long distances.

@sezwo5774

5 ай бұрын

@@im-a-mexican-knockedout-snorin The B52 was designed to carry large conventional loads. Multitude of bombs to be dropped in offensive attacks. Tu-95 was designed as a defensive deterrent, ...a plane to carry a small load, a single nuclear bomb (or nowadays a nuclear tipped missile or two). The B52 took part in many bombings in various American attacks. The Tu-95 never saw action. Both machines are still fulfilling their design objectives and therefore remain in service. One as an offensive weapon the other defensive. That is the main difference between the two bombers.

@im-a-mexican-knockedout-snorin

4 ай бұрын

@sezwo5774 you are wrong, tu 95 was built to strike America and return to Russia, it was built offensively for a first strike. That's what America and Russia was aiming for but the russians fell short

@sezwo5774

4 ай бұрын

@@im-a-mexican-knockedout-snorin Tu-95 was never used. Why? Because of its deterrence. It was built to be a deterrent and defensive weapon. It was extremely succesful. Without it probably Russia would have been attacked. B52 on the other hand was built as an offensive tool and found implementation in many American bombing campaingns all over the planet. Both are fulfilling their roles until today, that is why both are still in service.

I'll take the BUFFs every time.

Feeding your your citizens is better than everything 💯

How do you compare an ancient with hi-tech bro?

@DarrenK-dt7sx

28 күн бұрын

The B-52 and the TU-95 were released into active service apart from each other , and both have had a lot of tech upgrades. Yeah, I still think the B-52 is the superior craft, but the TU-95 is no slouch, either. Hardly as big a tech gap as ancient vs. high-tech.

Yes.

@user-xe5pt1or7v

5 ай бұрын

Не забывай В,,, сбила СССР ракета

It's hard to say I know that the B-52 is a shade more skillful then the Tu-95, but at the end of the day you got to admit that the Tu-95 is a monster in its own right, say they're both equaling matched. but for it's stealth and quality over quantity I'm going to give Tupolev Tu-95 or the "Bear" 🐻 the win

Considering the us doesnt need that extended range do to the fact we have air bases all around the world we dont need the range. So ill take the almost double pay load.

Dear Americans, read about Tu 160 white swan

@JudgeVandelay

6 ай бұрын

Why?

@riccccccardo

6 ай бұрын

Y is it not compared to the b52 instead?

@patrickf4692

6 ай бұрын

TU-160 yes very impressive........there are less active airframes of the TU-160 in service at 15 or 16..... Than the US's 2.5 billion dollar B-2 Steath Bomber fleet at around 20.... Scary.

@im-a-mexican-knockedout-snorin

5 ай бұрын

Yeah that Russia copied the American b 1A

The new Russian air-launched cruise missile X-101 has a maximum range of 5,500 km.

@Zurr-En-Arrh

6 ай бұрын

X= experiment,doesnt count.

@williamzk9083

6 ай бұрын

Russian claims of missile range can never be trusted. They include the range of the launch platform in some unknown configuration

This video is misleading ! What about the TU160 and TU22 ?! I can't believe it's not even mentionned !!! Here, people will think Russians only have the old TU95 !

@patrickf4692

6 ай бұрын

The US has B-1B's the B-2 and will soon have B-21's........ That's not what this video is about......

What about Russian white swan bomber??

@JudgeVandelay

6 ай бұрын

What about it?

@ambarishudta6291

6 ай бұрын

I got it...Tu-95 is strategic bomber and white swan is tactical 👍 right?...like B1 lancer and B-52.

@im-a-mexican-knockedout-snorin

5 ай бұрын

​@@ambarishudta6291 why do a copycat of the b1A

don't forget that the tu95 is the big boy but they also have the tu22M and the tu160, both are long range, heavy payload and supersonic bombers at the same time, us have stealth bombers like the b2 or the recent b21

of course the B-52 is better. duh. the B-52 is also getting another engine upgrade by Rolls Royce, cant say the same for the Tu-95

I love both, I'm non discriminate when it comes to airplanes. Russia has made some great aircraft through the years.

@user-xe5pt1or7v

5 ай бұрын

Невидимку сбила СССР ПВО 👍

Tu-95 has guts********"

B-52 Baby

with the advancement of future technologies, such bombers will be unusable

@_TeaDj_

6 ай бұрын

???

b52 all day long

It's a tie if both bombers are able to finish the mission with the same goal and result.

Children “ who is better at walking me or you. You are so I will never walk again” . How stupid. You make what you can .

Both ships are engineering Marvels but B-52 bomber stands out

@user-xe5pt1or7v

5 ай бұрын

Сбит в СССР ПВО

Turbo prop is powerful

Comparing the B52 to the Bear 🐻, well the B52 - is F15Ex and the Bear is the Japanese Zero.

@kinka16

6 ай бұрын

not really

I sure B52 is beter !.

The B-52 is able to refuel mid-air, the TU-95 can not. Therefore the B-52 can remain in the air for longer than 33 hours while the Bear cannot.

@Mike_Alastor

6 ай бұрын

you are wrong

You cannot compare a jet with a turbopropeller aeroplane. The only valid basis for comparison is their service life which are similar for both aircrafts.

@armaniburton8661

6 ай бұрын

what ever fool

@ImBigFloppa

6 ай бұрын

Both are long range strategic bombers intended deploy, initially, unguided bombs, and then used to deploy stand off cruise missiles. Just because the Tu-95 uses inferior piston engines doesn't make incomparable with the B-52.

@Noblepilot_abrahamvwi_aeroplan

6 ай бұрын

@@ImBigFloppa comparing it to the Tu-160 blackjack will have made a lot more sense. That's why the Soviets kept trying to outmatch the B-52. Speed, ceiling, payload, power plants... weight... Performance not intention is what defines an aircraft's role.

@ImBigFloppa

6 ай бұрын

@@Noblepilot_abrahamvwi_aeroplan Extremely long range subsonic strategic bomber intended to be the cheapest to operate. B-52 and Tu-95. B-52 is significantly better in every regard Long range supersonic bomber intended to penetrate enemy air defenses and unleash a massive amount of bombs. B-1B and Tu-160. The Tu-160 was never intended to replace the Tu-95 because the Tu-95 was significantly cheaper to operate. It was built as a response to the B-1B, which was built as a replacement for the B-52, but never really panned out as ICBMs took over as the primary nuke delivery system and bombers became conventional delivery systems.

@Noblepilot_abrahamvwi_aeroplan

6 ай бұрын

@@ImBigFloppa can't be any truer. As a pilot, I am just talking from a professional standpoint. Military doctrines and tactics differ from country to country;One super power to the other. I agree with you even though my argument was from the point of the engines. When you see a jet versus a turboprop, you can tell right away that the jet outperforms the turborop in every respect as you can see in the video even if it's got contrarotating engines. Just more noisier. 😀

B52 better as US got German engineers and scientists specialist in aircraft. Russia got the missiles.

@im-a-mexican-knockedout-snorin

5 ай бұрын

Wrong America already ruled the skies and sea then, they had the best airforce, then german scientists joined the American team. Russia had nothing but military donations and kidnapped german scientists

B-52!

Tu 95's come with hypersonic missiles now, huuuuge advantage.

tu 95 is best

После прследней модернизации ту95 стал иметь корейскую скорость 850 км/ч.

The B-52 is better because it’s American made

the bear is always right! the bear is the ultimate winner in the forest!

@JudgeVandelay

6 ай бұрын

The most nonsensical comment I've seen all day.

They are both junk, should get rid of both!

This video is pure Kremlin propaganda.😂

tu 95 so ugly look like a accident happen with that pole stickin out the cockpit