Tupolev Tu-95 Bear

haavarla said:
Josh_TN said:
haavarla said:
There is the upgrade of Tu-95. That will ensure them a service decades from now, well the ones that get this latest upgrade that is.
And on top of this, they are slowly producing AND upgrading Tu-160M.

This means they are not in a hurry of getting the Pak-Da into service. But that said, i have no doubt it will happen.
At some point they need to get rid of the hoplessy Navy striker Tu-22M's.. they are something of a dissepointment as a modern Strategical platform by now.
Click to expand...

There is also a modernization program for the Tu-22M3. And I don't understand why you consider it hopeless or a disappointment; I think it is generally considered a very capable platform in terms of range, speed, and payload. The fact that all three bomber types are undergoing modernization does indicate PAK DA is a long term plan.
Click to expand...

If you take Tu-22M, and try to grade it. Then the ONLY capability that ONLY matters is the combo Weapon and platform!
Unless you get a hard-on seeing it do FAB-500 bombing run over Syria..:p
The Kh-22 and Tu-22M is a symbiosis. Now the world and time has long since moved on. The Kh-22 is long ago seen as antiq weapon. The airframe of Tu-22 was basicly build around the massive Kh-22, hense they are basicly one and the same.
As for mission range on Tu-22, no its not great by any stretch. Even now i think they have put back on the refueling probes due to end of START II treaty.

Now if they made accomondation for say Kinzal or Kh-101 on it.. i would had to change my opinion
Click to expand...

The Kh-22 is a pretty fearsome weapon, and moreover there is a modernization/production (not sure if is a refurbishment or not) in the form of the Kh-32. The latter seems like roughly the Kh-22 with modern electronics and seeker. You also apparently are unaware of the Kh-15. Additionally, Russia has stated that Tu-22M3 will be updated to carry Kinzhal, though I think that is a pending modification. The range seems adequate for theater needs;Tu-22M wasn't intended as a strategic platform; it replaced medium ranged platforms like Tu-16 and Tu-22.

The use of free fall ordnance in Syria seems more like a cost saving measure than an absolute limitation.
 
TR1 said:
haavarla said:
Now if they made accomondation for say Kinzal or Kh-101 on it.. i would had to change my opinion
Click to expand...

Kh-50 is basically Kh-101 downsized for Tu-22M3.
Click to expand...

Well the Kh-101 has really taken its time.. they got it right in the end with its Trapez design.
Folded wings etc. Fits nicely on the barrel magazin inside Tu-160. All great.

Kh-22(Kh-50?) still looks like a throwback design from the 60's..
Its Huge, its fast. But really, just how deadly is it today against AEGIS and all its missiles today..

Edit:
Did you mean the Kh-55?
I guess we are talking about the Kh-32. But really, its form and size is almost identical to good old Kh-22.

https://www.navyrecognition.com/ind...ile-becomes-operational-in-russia-part-1.html
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:

The Kh-22 is a pretty fearsome weapon, and moreover there is a modernization/production (not sure if is a refurbishment or not) in the form of the Kh-32. The latter seems like roughly the Kh-22 with modern electronics and seeker. You also apparently are unaware of the Kh-15. Additionally, Russia has stated that Tu-22M3 will be updated to carry Kinzhal, though I think that is a pending modification. The range seems adequate for theater needs;Tu-22M wasn't intended as a strategic platform; it replaced medium ranged platforms like Tu-16 and Tu-22.

The use of free fall ordnance in Syria seems more like a cost saving measure than an absolute limitation.
Click to expand...

The mediocre Bomb bays on Tu-22M does not accomondate for anything else than KaB-500 dude.. in which does not make them mediocre anymore..

And debating if Tu-22M IS a Strategical or NOT as a platform is beside the point. What is important is to have a modern bomber that can deliver multiple different weapons. Different Missions. Not just one singel dedicated one as the Kh-22.

Besides.. Russia do have their "new" Tactical Frontline Bomber. The Su-34. And its far more versitile vs Tu-22M.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I hate to see that.

These and Super-Connies are the two loveliest airframes ever, to me.
 
To be fair, it seems unlikely that particular example was operational anyway.
 
As they tend to be when they're just sitting in the same place...for years in some cases (I believe partly due to now-expired treaties). Although ironically, that wing section could probably be salvaged, using other non-flight worthy airframes, of which exist several. You could get a museum piece either way.
 
It was at Engels, so u would guess it still provided parts. But the damage done will not prevent it from continuing to provide parts.

I am confident that aircraft not only has no fuel but has had its tanks wetted to make sure it cannot catch fire, because it clearly is not in service.
 
That one's sitting on a runway, lined up no less. not a taxiway or in a parking spot. Prior imagery of Engels shows that their Bears all had tire armor, even those in states of disassembly.

So the absence of protective tires and position on a runway suggests this one was either being prepared for use or it was an intentional decoy.
 
I don't see any "Russian air defenses firing" on cam, can you enlighten me where to look at?
 
flateric said:
I don't see any "Russian air defenses firing" on cam, can you enlighten me where to look at?
Click to expand...
I don't know if the lights passing left to right on the "BAZA" vid are tracers or the plane itself passing very low... ?
Other than that, there is nothing looking like AA fire.
 
I'd say that the Russian airforce is starting to run low on airworthy Tu-95s.
 
galgot said:
I don't know if the lights passing left to right on the "BAZA" vid are tracers or the plane itself passing very low... ?
Other than that, there is nothing looking like AA fire.
Click to expand...
This is your average Bear lightnings on night take-off
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20260929_210508_YouTube.jpg
    Screenshot_20260929_210508_YouTube.jpg
    262.5 KB · Views: 5
  • Screenshot_20260929_210523_YouTube.jpg
    Screenshot_20260929_210523_YouTube.jpg
    249.5 KB · Views: 5
Because very trustworthy @Forest Green source says so. Oh, wait, now it says it was a mistake.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom