Tu-95 Why this Tupolev Nuclear Bomber from the 1950s is still in Service today? 

And right now russians use this weapon to kill civilians in Ukraine. Just for fun.

TU 95 uses a very primitive radar system and IS RELYANT 100 PEECENT on a Navigator! Just like Wright Brothers did!

@@fibosssdvcinc8681

@@stonesore4583 it's very fun actually 😊

Щщззддддддджлж0

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.

@@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

@@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.

@@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

The B52 is old but the TU-95 is archaic and frankly no longer relevant really...

Or... B-52 is USA's version of Tu-95.

@@jerromedrakejr9332 exactly comrade

@@F.O.U.N.D.E.R no. The b52 came into production 4 years before the tu95

Tu-95 is also one of the loudest aircraft in service today bcos the tip of the propellers constantly creating sonic booms

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!

It depends on whether the Tu-95 carries nuclear-armed or conventional missiles

@@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.

@@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?

@@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

@@barrel1885 conventional missiles can also be used for strategic purposes, like you see in ukraine

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.

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.

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)

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"

@@Aitelly All Tu-95 ins service is MS variant which means airframes from 1984 and beyond. Idiot.

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

_>Their roles in Ukraine are honestly how it should properly be used_ Agreed. Fuck hohols in specific! xD

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.

Our B-52's got deployed to London. You're incorrectly stating that B 52's are in Ukraine they are not.

I think if there is a war with NATO, the bfstro strikers will destroy it and heavy bombers like it

@vovaermak3392 *WRONG too! This is a "strategic " BUNCH OF GARBAGE.*

Разрабатывался этот самолет, как бомбардировщик и был им, пртом стал ракетоносцем.

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.

@@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.

@@tomosa6880 tell me u just spam random illogical comment without any knowledge.

@@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

@@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?

Thanks 🙏

Thanks man

Its not its russian. There is nothing good quality from russia

@@pkwithmeplease The AK-47 wil disagree with you.

@@pkwithmeplease If so, why the West isn't attacking Russia yet? Because they would attack only weaker adversary. Facts .

Will surely do.

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.

A bit noisy though.

@@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 :)

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

Working on it!

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

@@poleteli i hear that the kinzal can only fire from mig-31 and tu-160 cuz they are fast

@@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

@@poleteli its name zircon i think, really good tech

As long as it still usefull compared to its maintain cost, then no reason to decommisioning them

B52 dropped Nukes in over 15 accidents, B52 half of them were lost to accidents, Tu95 never had an accident.

@@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.

​@@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.

@@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.

@@aflyingcowboy31 Even if the TU95 had an accidental drop, the USSR would never report it as missing, or even record it

Thanks for the feedback we really aprreciate constuctive ones

Their propeller are part of the engine, so yeah, it's turboprop

Thanks 🙏👍

They all start with little bias then it transforms, if it's an American/western behind the video everything Russia does is crap or a copyand everything US/west does is great sometimes very obvious sometimes subtle, if it's a Russian behind the video the west is scared from this or that weapon and the west has crap, so with time it becomes boring hopefully this one stays without bias or significant bias

Oh please, the author said that the Su-57 is the "fifth or fourth generation" (4:46), although he should be well aware that it is a fifth-generation fighter. Yes, of course the author is not prejudiced, come on.

Thank you

Thanks for the Support.We really Appreciate this gesture. We will keep on pruducing better videos as we moved ahead.

Thanks Rajesh

Thank You!

Thank You🙃

@@Aitelly i hope you will make videos on mig 21 mig 19 hawker hunter and mig 23 mig 27 etc

Thanks 🙏👍🙏

nah its biased as HECK!

@@TheMaehan please explain

Appreciate the gesture 🙌 Another video coming this week.

Thanks Man. We will always remain Humble.

We should do a video on that

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 ...

Will try

Thankyou

🤫

Thanks 🙏👍🙏

Thanks for the visit

In case of war - it doesn’t matter how much noise they produce 😊

This aircraft Tropulev TU95 does not produce any noise. Especially when it's at 30,000 feet.🙂

@@akhtarnadeem621How's it at out running jet interceptor fighters?

@@PTillA-kf7rq This is not an Interceptor Fighter.

@@akhtarnadeem621 I know I said how good is it at escaping from them?

So will the b 52, its really weird and they should not be compared

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...

They replace B21 after it has finished robbing taxpayers....

Ok

thank you

Thanks a Ton

Yay! Thank you!

@@Aitelly I thank You for the content and those animations, see you 😉

Thanks for the kind words

Thanks for your kind words 🙏👍

Will do now that we alreday finished the 3d models

@@Aitelly it's fantastic!

Merry Christams in Advance.

Did you hear "bavovna" at airfield? If not you will soon.

@@vadymvv Hahaha, true, true...

@@vadymvv Why do you have to bring politics into everything

@@vadymvv soon(C) you can hear something each night

Thanks Also New video coming in a few Hours

It's like the B52 now, a missile truck. In other words an fighter squadron can" bomb out" an area using B52/Bear launched cruise missles or can be used HV targets with no air cover..

Thnaks

For Sure currenlt Modeling it's exterion will finish the Interior in a coiple weeks. 2 weeks more for animation . Give us time we will deliver it.

:) good one

Great, I'll put the savings toward F-22 spare parts.

Great Informative Comment 👍

Will do

@@Aitelly Thank you so much!

Thank you very much!

True

Probability of those missiles hitting their intended target 60%

@@PTillA-kf7rq that is nonsense. Kh-55 has range of 2500 km and accuracy 6-10 meters and Kh-101 has the same accuracy but range up to 5500 km. these are cruise missiles, with digital maps, flight altitude 70-100 meters, GPS/GLONASS guidance and independent inertial, IR and EM targeting. where did you get that 60%? from your head?

@@basila33 What Guidance systems? Sanctions have decimated advanced electronics in the Russian mod, as for 60%? Estimates based on accuracy of hitting an actual military target based on data from the ISW on missile strikes. Really 60% was just too generous of me, it's more like 10%. Thank you for callin me out on this skippy, Quite the favor you did me. All be it though, I think I heard the original estimate on a news channel or something, but can't recall as that report was made in October or November of 2022 and I first saw it in review in January I think, Yup it's only gotten worse since then though. Seriously, If those things are as accurate as you would like me to believe how come it took, A year and a half to hit one actual factory just barely? Better yet how did Zelensky survive so long without pat AA batteries being in Ukraine sooner?

@@PTillA-kf7rq dude. first of all learn the actual meaning of word "decimation" - it comes from Rome Empire. this is kind of punishment in which 1/10 of cohort was executed. second. Russian military electronics are fully domestic and was never depend on something that could be sanctioned - exactly at such case. Russia has it's own global positioning sattelite network - GLONASS. it is operating and has the same accuracy as NavStar(GPS) and compatible with BeiDou. but you can keep repeation your self-calming mantras about "devastating sanctions", believe bs from ISW and whatever else you do to make your life more comfortable.

@@basila33 You call me "dude" but your not treating me as a friend or equal SIR. So DON'T. Now then I really enjoyed you definition of the word Decimation I find it so fascinating being part Italian, I have Roman blood in my veins so anything about the empire that successfully conquered Europe is quite thrilling to me, I must shamefully admit. & that 1/10 thing, Thank you for proving My POINT SIR I never said they weren't getting them, but now getting enough to make more than a few missiles somewhat "accurate". Means I gave an accurate use of the word Decimation if I do say so myself and you helped me to bring this out in detail, thanks again. I am very familiar with Glonass and I know it's accuracy. It's embarrassing to say the least by modern standards, if this were the second world war then no it would be rather impressive. But this is not ww2. Finally I love how you CAN'T AND WON'T tell me Y! Y it took A year and a half to hit one actual factory just barely? And how Zelensky survived so long without pat AA batteries being in Ukraine sooner? SO who really is the one that needs "COMFORT" in the face of sanctions and reports from the institute for the study of war (ISW)? NOT ME.

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

@@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.