Propellers

I wonder... Would building a carrier's whole deck on a slant, to a degree significant to no sink, and operate normal, would that help with take offs and landings?

>strategic bomber
Its a cruise missile carrier. It hasnt carried gravity bombs for well, most of its service life and it wont start now.

I believe that the rough standard is that turboprops are more fuel-efficient at speeds below 0.5M, and high-bypass turbofans are more fuel-efficient at speeds above 0.5M.

Hence, C-130s and local commuter planes use turboprops, while everybody else uses fans.

This is what a lot of people don’t seem to grasp. These bombers are meant to fly hundreds of miles off the west coast of the USA and launch a salvo of nuclear cruise missiles. They aren’t going to open bomb bays over Seattle.
F-22s out of Alaska will intercept them first, but you never know what might get through. The Russians fly mock cruise missile attack runs over the North Pacific and we intercept them, it’s a pretty common thing.

>The Tupolev Tu-95 (Russian: Tyпoлeв Ty-95; NATO reporting name: "Bear") is a large, four-engine turboprop-powered strategic bomber

Faggot

They really don't know how to into stealth

That bitch is so loud I could pick it up on the headset at 400 feet
t. Ex Pingjockey USN

The fucking thing is so loud submarines can see it on sonar when it is over the ocean.

If it hasnt been bombing in forever then it isnt a bomber anymore, but a missile truck or whatever you would like to call it.

>he thinks strategic bombers fly with nukes on them so that they can get near the range of the enemy's weapons

they literally were using them in syria...

>hundreds of miles off

~1.300-1.900, actually

>wikipedia
Did the perpetrators use AK-47 type salt rifles with high capacity bullet clips?

in what universe you think russia will even set a course over the combat range of the f22?
they have kh variants up to 5000km

Woah, since when did the Malays got A400's?

N1 fan is a propeller, moving on

modern high bypass turbofans are more effective than the TU-95s turboprop, at least when flying high and fast. But there are other reasons for going with turboprops.
>more efficient than high bypass turbofans when flying low and slow
>maintenance costs are low

There's a reason NATO still uses turboprops for some of their aircraft, like maritime surveillance and transport.

You don't need to use Gravity bombs to be a strategic bomber.

B52H and TU160 will never drop nuclear gravity bombs, neither will B2.

Tu-160 is not a bomber either.

Except we have no logistics to back them up. You would need to set up a whole new supply chain for parts and support equipment. Train or retrain thousands of maintainers and train pilots on its use.

WHAT
I CAN NOT BE HEARING YOU OVER SOUND OF GLORIOUS TURBOPROP

Tu160 can carry a conventional payload of UPAB 1500 glide bombs. It just requires the removal of the rotary launchers which is fairly easy as the launchers need to be changed for the various missile types anyway.

No idea what that is but I love it

You're right user, they are joking. They specifically developed this aircraft to jape people on a Korean claymation forum.

Attached: 1550754424562.jpg (1280x716, 172K)

A B-52 isn't really that much faster to matter against a missile that's Mach 3+ at it's apex and motor burn out (and then descends upon it's target).

GE and P&Ws propfan experiments showed efficiency gains over high bypass turbofans at the cruise sweet spot of Mach 0.8. Ultra high bypass engines like the GE90 still somewhat trail in cruise SFC.

Turbofans are generally mechanically simpler and quieter (no blade pitch control linkage). Also any kind of failure will be contained within the fan shroud. Noise was a big thing going against the propfan too, and sound abatement has only gotten more strict in the last 30 years.

Regardless of adoption, GE at least leveraged the carbon fibre blade technology used in their unducted fans to create bigger and longer turbofan blades that engines like the GE90 employ. It definitely wasn't a total loss.

Attached: e1c3y0neqxh11.jpg (2048x2048, 336K)

Yes, as cruise missile trucks...

youtube.com/watch?v=GZECAu5jxPc

sputniknews.com/middleeast/201511181030302801-russia-syria-isis-tu160-tu95-strategic-bomber/

The universe where F-22s out of Alaska regularly intercept Bears over the North Pacific, like the last 4 generations of fighters in US history going back to the 1960s.

interesting, i didn't know that. what's a better name, strategic missile sled? evidently it still has strategic rather than tactical CONOPs

yes thats not an argument in a regular war scenario they are not gonna fly off the coast of alaska/canada and then california..thats a recipe for disasater

jew

>Also any kind of failure will be contained within the fan shroud
youtube.com/watch?v=JQCBlbvYzDI

No user that's a fighter

Attached: mig-15-e1269256342105.jpg (1200x712, 69K)

come here fagot

Attached: mi6 lifting mig.jpg (404x450, 61K)

>They specifically developed this aircraft to ...
...troll.

I remember a couple months ago some flightradar twitter reported a Bear flying around Japan. Like, literally around the whole damn islands, going south on one side and back up north on the other. Apparently just for shits and giggles. Well, and because the nips would send out about a dozen or so squadrons of fighters over the span of several hours to give it escorts all the way, like some sort of demented relay race

Attached: E-2C Hawkeye Airborne Early-warning Aircraft.jpg (1600x1143, 123K)

Lose the name faggot

what happen if propeller break

im all for a shit on russia thread, but dont start it off by fucking with one of the few pieces of good equipment they have.

>these strategic bombers aren't going to bomb stategic targets in enemy territory, what are you stupid?

then what exactly are they going to do, bomb the shit out of the empty ocean?

>ywn dive bomb ragheads in the desert while screaming the Luftwaffe anthem to yourself
Why even live?

The most expensive part of an aircraft is the pilot. It makes no sense to put them in a turboprop trainer for any serious work. Not to mention the Texan and Tucano cost almost as much to fly as an F-16

Mostly Tu-95 are going to do nothing. Even in a world war 3/ DEFCON 0 situation they'd die on the ground or in the air, having delivered nothing.

yes bravo user surely they need to be CLOSE to the shore in order to throw missiles that have 5000km range right?

its not like we have seen them flying around japan and then go straight to california and back to russia before...
no they MUST go via alaska..

It's a subsonic missile and to get a 5000km range they'd need to launch and fly high.

I can't help but think they might get shot down some time during their six hour journey to their target.

from what exactly? anything on alaska will probably migrate to canada since they will be bombed to hell and back thats a given

between russia and usa there is only hawaii down there somehow i doubt the 199th sq has a sizeable force to deal with them

Now imagine if it was supersonic. Like a Giant Thunderscreech powered by Communism.

I wonder how much louder they could make it.

Sorry, let me correct: contain any failure aside turbine disc disintegration.

The Tu-95 carries the KH-55 nuclear capable cruise missile which has a range of 1300 miles.
The F-22 has a range of 1800 miles.
Bases in Alaska allow USAF to intercept hostile bombers flying out of the Russians Far East before they get into missile range of CONUS,

tu 95s will soon carry only the kh BD and the kh 101/102s

>f22 has a range of 1800miles
Ferry Range > Max. Total Range > Combat Range
in a magical world where the fighter jets magically turn back and land after their reach their maximum range this is true
in reality where cheatcodes and infinite fuel doesnt exist their combat range isnt even 800km..

Ok Vatink. In your world of the most pessimistic views on American aircraft range but accepting the most wildly optimistic unproven claims of Russian equipment, you can drink yourself to sleep knowing that the motherland will bury the capitalist dogs of the west,

Attached: F-22-1.jpg (1200x844, 286K)

Shhhhhhh
Let the Vatnik dream
Also, pretty sure they don't know how to use a tanker

not one like that anyway, bear do drogue-and-chute refueling

first stop sperging
second its time to actually argue about things you know
third stop flagging people as russians when they call your bullshit out

now
if you think that an f22 can remotely have the same range as a fucking tu 95 you need to wake up drink some bleach and die

>using air tankers on a contestive airspace

please tell us who is going to pretect the air tankers from the escorts? GOD?

oh wait

>Using Bears on a contested airspace
Allrighty then

Better have some long range fighters.
are the Bears going to contest the airspace? are the Bears going to shoot down tankers with their non-existent offensive armament?

Also you realize that the tankers could sit outside of the contested airspace, with fighters exiting the contested region to refuel, right?
>inb4 "then they might as well be going back to airfield to refuel"
the tankers can fly in regions over the pacific, and are already at altitude, so the fighters will not be wasting time and fuel landing, taking off, and climbing back up to altitude.

let me fix two scenarios for you with what we know so far from russia

they have 3 drone bases 6 s400 sites and i believe 2 airports that are currently active
with 3 more a bit further away inland that are currently being constructed

many things can happen
1) currently alaska has 2 thaad systems and few icbm interceptors and literally nothing in the offensive side of things
2)russia has 3 airports being made outside of some of the cruise missiles range

now its very simple

either russia will bomb the few airports that are in alaska and force the aircrafts to leave to canada
either russia will think "nah we are fine just send the bears off the coast of alaska surely that makes a lot of sense since we are at war right?"
in 2012 japan intercepted the bears near their FIR at the north sector they flew near hawaii and then they got to california->canada->alaska->and into russia
2014 they made the same route in reverse

you would have know that if you did a bit of googling

what part of "escorts" you didnt get? obviously if they fly near alaska (which they wont) they will use airtankers and escorts they did that in 2017 they said "happy 4th of july" then 2 bears continued to california and the rest returned back

WHAT?! SPEAK UP!

>3 drone bases
more shit to intercept
>6 s400 sites
I didn't know SAM trucks can be deployed in the pacific or magically teleport into alaska
>2 airports
not a counter argument, but surely you mean airbase?
>currently alaska has 2 thaad systems and few icbm interceptors and literally nothing in the offensive side of things
what about the defensive side? weren't we arguing about the US's defensive capability, specifically it's ability to intercept Tu-95s?
>russia will bomb the few airports that are in alaska and force the aircrafts to leave to canada
No fucking shit retard; and we'll seek to intercept them. I don't know how this is a counter argument.
>in 2012 japan intercepted the bears near their FIR at the north sector they flew near hawaii and then they got to california->canada->alaska->and into russia
2014 they made the same route in reverse
Great, so your argument is that they'll just fly around land based defenses and land based aircraft. As other people have pointed out, they'll just have US jets be refueled in the air.
>what part of "escorts" you didnt get?
So the escorts will leave the Tu=95s to engage some tanker a ways off and leave it vulnerable to fighters; cause that's what escorts are supposed to do?
>obviously if they fly near alaska (which they wont) they will use airtankers and escorts they did that in 2017
so when the russians use airtankers for their fighters, those will be safe and sound while american ones aren't? Sure thing Ivan.

>in 2012 japan intercepted the bears near their FIR at the north sector
>in 2012 japan intercepted the bears
>intercepted the bears
>intercepted
really proves your point that they won't be intercepted there buddy

>I didn't know SAM trucks can be deployed in the pacific or magically teleport into alaska

geography is sure you weakest point

>what about the defensive side? weren't we arguing about the US's defensive capability, specifically it's ability to intercept Tu-95s?

and if they bomb your airports where your planes will migrate? to the bottom of the ocea or the closest ally? hmm

>So the escorts will leave the Tu=95s to engage some tanker a ways off and leave it vulnerable to fighters; cause that's what escorts are supposed to do?

this is exactly why china developed j 20 in the first place its not like that piece of shit is nible or powerfull enough to do anything else

literally proves my point that they can set a course from pretty much that whole hemisphere because between them and california is literally one big fucking ocean
kc 135 doesnt even have a big range to begin with the only defence will have is off the coast of california obviously and whatever ships they might have between the coast and whatever course the planes have

>geography is sure you weakest point
Even at the closest point between Alaska and Russia, assuming the s400s are using 40N6E missiles with 380km/236mi range, that doesn't cover much into Alsaka, and covers only the immediate area of the Bering strait. Now this makes sense if the Tu-95s are crossing over the strait, but you also said that they wouldn't be going near alaska, so I don't know why you're mentioning them, because if the Tu-95s aren't going to be there, neither are the US interceptors.
>and if they bomb your airports where your planes will migrate? to the bottom of the ocea or the closest ally? hmm
The planes are going to be scrambled to intercept in the event of a major attack anyhow. Again, they can be refueled in the air or ditch over land.
>this is exactly why china developed j 20 in the first place its not like that piece of shit is nible or powerfull enough to do anything else
What the fuck does china and the J-20 have to do with Russian escort fighters and the way in which they are used?
>kc 135 doesnt even have a big range to begin with
Just because the Bear has an impressive range doesn't mean that the KC's range is insignificant
>the only defence will have is off the coast of california obviously
so you mean more airbases with more aircraft? Awfully nondescript.
>and whatever ships they might have between the coast and whatever course the planes have
Says this while talking about the country with both the largest navy in the world and the most aircraft carriers in the world.

Look I don't even hate the Tu-95, and I get that they are now used to deliver cruise missles, and it seems to me that originally you were trying to point that out, which is fine. I don't get why people are shitting on the Tu-95 anyways, it's good at what it was designed to do. That being said, if they get close to the US (including bases they have elsewhere), the bears are going to be shot down.

I mean, after all, that is why they use missles now.

>Wtf is turboprop?
Imbecile.

Attached: a400m.jpg (2048x1365, 818K)

He somehow thinks that the USA doesn’t have the ability to intercept the Tu-95 before it reaches missile range of the west coast.

He’s retarded.

They are flying around Japan for quite a while. This is a map of several flights 6 years or so ago.

Attached: TU-95 flight map Japan.jpg (450x403, 129K)

>are the Bears going to shoot down tankers with their non-existent offensive armament?
You could fit massive RADARs on them and shitloads of missiles, even multistage BVR missiles with 1,000 mile range, and closer in missiles that could even shoot down other missiles

Tu-95 carries cruise missiles with ranges of 2500, 3000 and 5500 km. F-22 combat radius is at the very best ~1574,2 km. sorry to burst your bubble, but F-22 is impotent in intercepting Tu-95 armed even with its most primitive original early 80s cruise missiles before load release.

Attached: tu-95ms with kh-101 (2).jpg (1000x667, 170K)

>Using Bears on a contested airspace
>are the Bears going to contest the airspace?
No, Bears will release their 5500 km range cruise missiles and turn back, you absolute fucking retards.

You could do that, but you'd need to modify the bomber to have numerous hardpoints or to have speacialized bomb-bays and an electronics bay.
Plus, these mods will affect the range in some way (but what doesn't)
yes, but he was also insinuating that in a situation where they get into range with interceptors supported by a tanker that somehow the Tu-95s with no support would compromise the tankers safety by contesting the airspace, which without modification like said they wouldn't (because their job is to get into missile range, launch them and turn back).

>Plus, these mods will affect the range in some way (but what doesn't)
It's a Tu-95, it probably won't, not significantly.

Why do retards ITT keep bringing up Alaska? Tu-95 are stationed at Engels and Ukrainka. The former will release their missiles roughly over north-eastern Greenland. The latter somewhere over Chukotka.

Attached: Untitled.png (2307x607, 281K)

Well, he's pretty retarded then.
>a situation where they get into range with interceptors supported by a tanker
Even if you double(!) clean F-22 combat radius with two fuel tanks, it will not be even nearly enough to intercept Tu-95 before it releases its Kh-101.

cause they've never looked at the proper maps to be used in this type of scenario

Attached: 1200px-Northern_Hemisphere_Azimuthal_projections.svg.png (1200x1221, 518K)

no contest there, but he started arguing about how nothing could intercept the Tu-95s if they got near US defenses or something dumb like that, losing sight of the original point (that the planes wouldn't even be near US defenses).

Also he thinks that the Tu-95s will be coming through the pacific for some reason.

>Also he thinks that the Tu-95s will be coming through the pacific for some reason.
Lol. Well, someone obviously needs a geography lesson then.

I think this is supposed to be concept art for a lower tech aircraft for after a nuclear war, and more advance aircraft no longer had the manufacturing and support base they needed.

Attached: 1549842108144.jpg (900x587, 185K)

>contra-rotating turboprop
>lower tech aircraft

Attached: 1332003547001.gif (720x720, 36K)

Than jets I guess? I could be mistaken.

Jets aren't particularly low tech too. More like WWII piston engines.

Attached: mig-3 & mig-35 (3).jpg (1280x973, 191K)

F-16's with sidewinders can kill them without any problem. Hell, F-16's can kill them with the cannon.

What is going to escort the Kh-55? with a body kit on it's amazing six hour flight to the target?

Kh-101 is a stealth missile with 5500 km range that cruises at 30-70 meters. It doesn't need an escort, user.

Attached: 1273176394301.png (679x427, 17K)

>Using an air superiority fighter to interdict a strategic bomber

Why not just send a long range interceptor like the SR-71.

Attached: designated SR-71 interceptor.jpg (2806x1784, 315K)

Good luck shooting at something coming out of supersonic.
Also good luck to the poor son-of-a-bitch in the SR-71 who has to aim for the Tu-95 while still retaining some speed (otherwise it's a big-ass easy target).

>Not to mention the Texan and Tucano cost almost as much to fly as an F-16

Source: Your ass

currently the BD has a 5000km range

please give me an example on a map where you can possibly intercept them assuming the starting point is from the center of the biggest cities in california there is current a big ass void between hawaii and aleutian islands that basicly nothing can even begin to monitor unless you fill this entire area with destroyers (19 to be exact assuming the 175nm is real)

It's WW2 tech, so yeah, pre-electronics age stuff.