Article

2006-10-12 Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia

Still flying Bears off the US coasts? (Photo)

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by 3dc 2006-10-12 01:51|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I'm surprised they have a Bear that's still flyable.

Posted by Mike 2006-10-12 07:02|| 2006-10-12 07:02|| Front Page Top

#2 Jeebus, a prop-driven bomber?!? What's that long thing sticking out of the nose?

Posted by Scooter McGruder 2006-10-12 08:54|| 2006-10-12 08:54|| Front Page Top

#3 Midair refueling probe I think.

Posted by tu3031 2006-10-12 08:57|| 2006-10-12 08:57|| Front Page Top

#4 Still used as maritime patrol aircraft,I believe. Nice long range with the turbo-prop engine. Since they built a bunch, there's probably lots of spare parts to cannibalize.

Posted by SteveS 2006-10-12 09:30|| 2006-10-12 09:30|| Front Page Top

#5 That is indeed a refueling probe, and IIRC, Mister Bear was still in limited production as late as the 1990s. I had a chance to see one at Barksdale AFB, LA in the early 90s - that monster is one SOLID arplane, and it's crews are as devoted to it as our B-52 crews are to their airplanes.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2006-10-12 09:34|| 2006-10-12 09:34|| Front Page Top

#6 God that must be fun now that we are not pointing guns at each other. BTW the TU-95 Bear is an outstanding Intelligence Platform. It can carry a lot of gear/people, long range, and good loiter time. The long tube out of the nose is a refueling probe. The usuallly work in pairs with one being a tanker version. The tanker will loiter off station (outside U.S. airspace)and refuel the Recon bird as needed.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2006-10-12 10:08|| 2006-10-12 10:08|| Front Page Top

#7 And yes, it's a prop design - two counter-rotating props per engine.

Posted by mojo">mojo 2006-10-12 10:41|| 2006-10-12 10:41|| Front Page Top

#8 The Tu-95 was concurrent with the B-52. It's only about 10% slower and has outlived several "replacements" (Mya-4, Tu-22).

Over all, a darned good airplane.

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2006-10-12 11:50|| http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2006-10-12 11:50|| Front Page Top

#9 Yet ANother Airplane that I can't afford...

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2006-10-12 11:53|| 2006-10-12 11:53|| Front Page Top

#10 Don't underestimate props, under several circumstances they are far more fuel efficient than jet engines.

Remember than the Russians are very good at designing for practicality, such as using EMP resistant tubes instead of easily-fryable electronics.

They are also firm believers in armored aircraft and aircraft that are your basic flying engines.

On the surface, such aircraft seem strange, but there is usually an underlying logic to them.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-10-12 11:53|| 2006-10-12 11:53|| Front Page Top

#11 "An F-15 Eagle from the 12th Fighter Squadron at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, flies next to a Russian Tu-95 Bear Bomber"

Well, that's a polite way of saying it.....

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-10-12 12:07|| 2006-10-12 12:07|| Front Page Top

#12 Getting serious for a second, if something like the Bear weren't designed for practicality, and were a maintenance hog instead, how would you find out?

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2006-10-12 12:11|| 2006-10-12 12:11|| Front Page Top

#13 One difference from the cold war - looks like more "stylized" paint is allowed on the front of the aircraft. And looking at the bulge under the nose, that's a maritime patrol verison of a Bear, likely surface search radar in there amongst other electronic listenting goodies.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-10-12 13:33|| 2006-10-12 13:33|| Front Page Top

#14 Contrarotating gearboxes are complicated and maintenance intensive.

Posted by ed 2006-10-12 13:41|| 2006-10-12 13:41|| Front Page Top

#15 Don't forget the tailgunner.

Posted by Chuck Simmins">Chuck Simmins 2006-10-12 13:42|| http://northshorejournal.org]">[http://northshorejournal.org] 2006-10-12 13:42|| Front Page Top

#16 Engines are turboprops, and they always drew a crowd on the flight deck whenever they buzzed us, but always bewteen them and us was either a Tomcat, Phantom, or occasionally a Corsair II. I suppose that even a Hornet has been pressed into doing that, but I never saw that. The Bear is one impressive airplane.

Posted by USN, ret. 2006-10-12 15:41|| 2006-10-12 15:41|| Front Page Top

#17 Jeebus, a prop-driven bomber?

Bexcause it has propellers it is easy to put it in the same bag than B17s or B29s. But it is a turboprop not a piston-engined plane and it is much faster than a Mustang and at least as fast or even faster than German WWII jets. It is only marginally only fifty miles per hour slower than the B52. It has lower ceiling (12000m against 17000m) and payload is only half but it seems to have the same range (15000 km).

It is very noisy, so much that immersed sunmarines were able to detect it by the noise, or to be uncomfortable for intercepting fighters. Many of its crewmen developped hearing problems.

Anyway the Bear was nothing to sneeze at.

The Soviets tried to make a very long range jet bomber but failed because their jet engines were not fuel-efficient. So they built a turboprop instead.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2006-10-12 16:37|| 2006-10-12 16:37|| Front Page Top

23:57 Zenster
23:56 Icerigger
23:50 Icerigger
23:48 Tony (UK)
23:45 trailing wife
23:34 Zenster
23:34 Old Patriot
23:31 Lancasters Over Dresden
23:26 Tibor
23:04 Hupailing Ebbuns2352
23:03 Hupailing Ebbuns2352
23:03 Hupailing Ebbuns2352
23:01 Hupailing Ebbuns2352
22:42 tu3031
22:33 FOTSGreg
22:28 Alaska Paul
22:27 J.D. Lux
22:26 JosephMendiola
22:24 FOTSGreg
22:22 DMFD
22:19 JosephMendiola
22:18 Frank G
22:17 Frank G
22:16 DMFD