Talk:Tupolev Tu-95/Archive 1

Tupolev Tu-95 standardised Football Field units
WTF does this phrase mean: "carrying a load equivalent to only 200 kg short of the weight of three Douglas DC-3s"? Since when is load measured in DC-3s? I only understand SI units or football fields. Please translate.144.132.240.212 (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Images on the Portuguese wikipedia
On the Tupolev Tu-95 Bear page on the Portuguese wikipedia, there are 3 images that are much better than those here. , & .  I am not sure how to get them here and not get in trouble with the "no source" police. --rogerd 03:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Expand, please...
While an interesting article, it's a little spare on hard data. When did the Bear first fly? How many were built? Stuff like that. - Aerobird 16:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Will do. Give me a couple of days. - Emt147 Burninate!  17:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Added first flight, couldn't find how many were built. - Dammit 13:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Mischief in the Air Bias tag
I'm getting ticked at finding these NPOV and other related tags littered all over Wikipedia without an explanation as to why their there in the first place. Anyone wish to list the reasons why the tags are up there?? --293.xx.xxx.xx 09:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a citation for the quote and removed the tag. Polpo 22:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is true, whom instead thay will put a "KGB guy"? If there are free places in the airplane? Free ejection seats or oxygen masks that he can take? Plus to this there is no need to move from another ane of tha airplane to another, as there is comunication system - it is better to use it, then waste hours crawling back & forth. For me it's souns more like boasting "Should we only move our finger & Russian poor idiot will crawl just like we want it". Such storys are good to tell to girls in a pub to get them to bed. '''"As far as the Soviets went, this got a little out of hand, for they started putting a KGB officer on board to stop the crew waving at us." We soon worked out that by moving our jet forwards and backwards we could get this poor idiot to spend hours crawling back and forth down this tunnel, just to stop the crew from waving at us."'''

May be it's better to remove this? It depicts American pilots as a complete morons, so removing depends on how much common it is... '''On the American side, the stories sometimes involved American pilots using offensive signs and gestures in reply to the Russians waving. Some US Navy pilots claim that they would fly alongside the Russian planes and hold up the latest issue of Playboy."''' --Oleg Str 08:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The star was a symbol of the Soviet Union. The Union no longer exists. Simple. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.240.136.81 (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC).


 * To Str|Oleg: the quote was from a British pilot mentioning how they would make the political officer crawl from the front of the plane to the back of the plane in order to prevent the Tupolev crew from waving at the pilots. As you can clearly see in the pictures, there are windows and crew at both ends of the plane and only 1 officer between them, meaning that the officer would have to crawl between the two sections of the plane in order to fulfill his duty (preventing the crew from waving at enemy pilots) 202.216.126.70


 * The point is that there weren't any political officers aboard, plain and simple, even military ones, much less anybody from The Office. ^_^ Strategic bombers were large aircraft, but not nearly large enough to waste life support and precious weight to a worthless "KGB guy". Brit pilots simply fell victim to Cold War indoctrination that tend to paint KGB as everpresent and omnipotent dark shadow. So I really doubt that this particular quotation has its place here -- it's just an amusing piece of the Cold War mythos and doesn't give any useful information about plane itself or its use.


 * In reality, there was hardly more than one political officer per REGIMENT, and he was a simply military bureaucrat with virtually no power and say in any matter. The purpose of these officers were little more than deliver the political message from high above, and they were mostly useless even at that. Their power was very limited (the biggest trouble thay could do to anybody was usually only an official reprimand) and they were generally despised and laughed at by everybody, who seen them more as a nuisanse than as real threat or even an influence. And military KGB was a completely different organisation, which had nothing to do aboard a stratobomber on partol. --Khathi 04:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, it's really better to delete the "exciting" stories about "the poor russian idiot", KGB officers and etc. bullshit and Cold war propaganda.. Also the pictures- I'm pretty sure that B-52 has been also intercepted lots of times by the Russians, but on the B-52 section there are pictures of B-52 itself, not intercepted, followed and escorted by Su or MiGs, right? Cantomanto 22:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, how many times have you EVER seen a pic of a B-52 or comparable US/allied aircraft being escorted by SOviet fighters? I can't remeber any, but they may well exist. The main difference here, in spite of your rant on "COld War propoganda", is the US military has always been more forthcoming about pics of its (non-classified) aircraft than the Soviets - and don't tell me its because the SOviets coulnd't afford the film ;) FOr many years, the only good pics available of Soviet aircraft were those taken during intercepts by Western fighters. Those pics are still around, and if they're US military pics, they are public domain. THat last fact probably has more to do with the fact of intercept pics being used on Wikipedia than any other. It's not about a Western bias, but about an availibility of free images, and that does have to do with Soviet policy during the Cold War. - BillCJ 23:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

BillCJ, dear friend, are you really trying to convince me that there is lack of photos of the Soviet aircrafts?? That's ridiculous, try on Google and you'll get some 40 000 sites with Tu-95 pics available, easily.. And what about the KGB spider-man, this poor idiot spending hours crawling back and forth down the tunnel, just to stop the crew from waving at dunno-what? ))))) Tell me more about that pls, it's so exciting! )))) Seriously, I dont think it's NPOV, it looks more like spreading rumours, and I'm not really sure by acting this way we make the Wikipedia more academic and reliable source of information. Cantomanto 13:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Try reading what I wrote again: I said I'd never seen a pic of a Western aircraft being escorted by Soviet fighters, NOT never seen a pic of soviet aircraft. There may well be pics of such interceptions, but I've not seen them. If the material in the text is unsourced, then it shoiuld be removed, If it has credible vefifiable sources, but you disagree with it, then cite verifiable sources with an opposing view. - BillCJ 17:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the part about the KGB spider-man, I think a blog of s.o., telling fairy tells about his personal life can hardly be considered as credible, reliable and verifiable source of information. Cantomanto 22:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have dozens of intercepts of Soviet Tu-95 Bears under my belt and a few of Il-38 May as well as Badgers and other surveillance aircraft, but never saw a Soviet Fighter, period. And that would be primarily due to their range compared to that of the Bears, Badgers, Bisons and Mays that could venture hundreds of miles from the coast of the Soviet Union. The onlu intercepts I have heard of and actually seen photos of are by the occasional Su-27 intercepts of Norweigian P-3s operating in vicinity of the Kola Peninsula.

As to political officers being aboard, I can't say one way or the other. We intercepted pairs of Bear D snoopers as far as 1000 miles away from our carrier and in all cases no less than 200 miles away and stayed with them as long as they remained within 200 miles of the carrier. We usually stayed slightly sucked and down from the tail gunner position avoiding the arc of his guns and the wingtip vortices. The heaviest volume of intercepts I experienced were between 1982-86 and even though the Cold War was on, they were always cordial encounters and the only games being played were their attempts to find the carrier while the the carrier stayed EMCON and we playfully stayed on their wing while they searched for it. I never saw a tailgunner who didn't wave or take pictures (either for himself or as a part of his job) and most of the time they waved us forward so the folks in the forward part of the aircraft could also see and take pictures of us. I never carried any magazines, but did hang fuzzy dice from my rear view mirror. Some aircrews had gorilla masks or other novelties to break the boredom of flying wing for an hour or so on the big beast. My most poignant memory is the sound of their engines which could be heard in our cockpit over our loud ECS from hundreds of feet away. I can only imagine how loud it must have been for them. That's all I have for "Show n tell". Cheers, HJ HJ 23:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, I believe Bear is THE loudest thing ever flown. While crews always wore ear protection, the deafness rate among them still was much higher than the average. When the plane was converted to a civilian airliner, dealing with noise was the single most difficult problem. I remember being on the apron of the Domodedovo airport as a little boy, when 114s were still in operation, and even with the muffled civilian engines the roar was truly deafening. Much louder than any jets of the time, like Tu-154 or Il-62, and those weren't noted for their quietness, belive me. --Khathi 17:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the reason the Bear is so noisy is that the prop tips break the sound barrier. Ptomblin (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That's correct and the noiseiness issue ought to be worked into the article, in brief.--Phyllis1753 (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Pictures: America is unusual in that photographs taken by serving members of her armed forces while on duty are automatically in the Public Domain, meaning that they are, in effect, not copyrighted. So there are many pictures of US military origin on Wikipedia simply because they are un-copyrighted and so the contributor doesn't need to seek permission from the photographer to use them. Countries such as Britain (and possibly Russia and the remnants of the former Soviet Union) however do not use this system, which makes finding suitable images much more difficult, as any images may be the copyright of the individual photographer who took the picture, or in the UK's case, will be 'Crown copyright' if taken whilst serving as a member of the UK armed forces and on duty at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"Only turboprop-powered bomber"?
"To date it remains the only turboprop-powered bomber to have been deployed."

I'm not deleting that passage, but I think it needs clarification. The Bear probably is the only turboprop-powered strategic bomber ever deployed, but I would argue that the US Navy's Lockheed P-3 Orion antisubmarine aircraft qualifies as a bomber.

Lyle F. Padilla (lpadilla@voicenet.com) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.103.47.158 (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC).
 * You may have a point. Perhaps the class of bomber needs clarifying. Or perhaps it needs to be pointed out that this doesn't include torpedo aircraft.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure the Orion can drop things, but the "bomber" title refers to its mission. An F16 can drop a whole load of bombs, but you wouldn't class it as a "bomber". And you certainly wouldn't send an Orion to to bomb some factory someplace that needed bombing.94.175.244.252 (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"Cold War Icon"
I'm a little bothered that the "Cold War Icon" section seems more full of boasting about how good we were at intercepting Bears, than actually about the Aircraft... 84.92.80.169 15:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Armament
I believe that Bears also carry Kh-555 missile, which has the range of 3500 km, but there's nothing about it on the page. Can someone find other sources, as I have only one newspaper article on it? --Khathi 17:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Mischief in the air...
I live in England, just outside the M25 (30 miles from london, ish) The Tupolev Tu-95 dropped the world's largest nuclear bomb ever a few decades ago, this was redesigned last-minute to have it's power halved. Nonetheless if a bomb of the same power (50 megatonnes) were dropped in the centre of london I would be dead. As would countless millions of other people, not to mention the chaos caused to the rest of the country and the world's economy from one bomb. And in the last fifty years the Russians could easily have developed a bomb even stronger than the original design of 100 megatonnes. There is also their announcement of an anti-cruise missile proof cruise missle to consider.

This coupled with the continuing arguments and political machinations between England and Russia in the fallout (pun intended) of the Alexander Litvinyenko assasination leads to a very real fear of attack. This morning eight bombers approached London and not for the first time.

I dunno about you but I'm pretty nervous.

Still, running into the streets and causing annarchy isn't going to do any good, but I can help improve the wikipedia article giving an account of our possible demise. I think the 'mischief in the air' section should be expanded/span out to a more detailed article on these incidents. However, I'm on a wikibreak and don't have the time/energy to do it myself, hence the IP signature. Could someone else make a start on it please? 86.147.250.62 20:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Do it yourself, and, wikipedia is not a blog, please do not post your own personal views here. Meateater 10:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

RAF intercepts
The tally of intercepts is a little RAF-centric. When posting, be mindful of the fact that as the Tu-95s approach Britain, they need to past Norway and so the Norwegians are often the first to respond. The press can be a bit myopic so it may be difficult, but try to check several sources prior to posting an account of the incident. -- Htra0497 03:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The word 'Intercept' does indeed imply confrontation between the RAF and the Tu-95's, yet whether this is the case or not is not for us to worry about. Wikipedia serves only to inform of events that happened, regardless of the circumstances, and that is why they are so numerous. Cyclonenim (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Either the Norwegians missed the intercept ( unlikely ), or they observe tighter security than the RAF or the articles they wrote are in Norwegian which very few English language Wikipeans can read. 91.128.24.86 (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the Soviets were not particularly interested in what the Norwegians did, Norway wasn't ever likely to be in a position to inflict damage to the Soviet Union if war had broken out. The British in the other hand, were. And so Britain was likely to be a potential target for Soviet bombers, whilst Norway was probably not.


 * The question is whether the Tu-95s needed to overfly Norwegian territorial waters, in which case, the Norwegians would have had a reason to intercept them. If the bombers did not however, then the Norwegians may not have bothered. The reason the RAF were so involved was because the Soviets frequently tried to penetrate UK airspace and the interceptions by the RAF were not just a few isolated cases. At the time (up to about 1980) the UK still had the third largest navy in the world, and so there was plenty for the Soviets to want to find out about going on in UK territorial waters.


 * It may be simply that the Norwegians didn't place the importance on the overflights/incursions that the UK did. Or perhaps, as you say, they just kept quiet about them. But the flights weren't intended for finding out about Norway - they were for observing (or 'spying') on UK naval activities and probing the RAF's air defence capabilities. Norway wasn't a nuclear power with the capability to inflict severe damage on the Soviet Union, whereas Britain was, and could have done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * An excerpt from a programme featuring some 1970's film of a Tu-95 being escorted by an RAF BAC Lightning here:

What.... Nepal?
the article can be named "Bear in Nato's grip" or "cowboys n gung-ho pilots chase bears" ...

apart from the initial text I do not find any stuff related to the aircraft in question, It proves the point that Russians used the bear to harress the NATO/US navy or violate airspace, test the airdefences (with elint) or tried stirring some AD radar info...but it becomes saturated with the bear's intrusions more rather than the vital specs, no content grill-down..

ok, save the bullet...

I do not know any Nepalese airarm having anything sturdier than a T-45, (in FWA) ..(i know they operate mi-24/35 in COIN role)

But this bear is a supposed to have been a Strategic aircraft for haven's sake.. any one care to share any reliable reference for that..

Or was that some joke???

Swraj (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have checked about a dozen references on Tu-95 employment from the 1970s, 80s and 90s and conducted a pretty complete internet search and can find no indication of Nepalese Tu-95s. Judging by the types listed that they fly at Nepalese Army Air Service (backed up by some refs I found) it would seem to be at best an apocryphal edit or at worst a joke. I will fix it in the article. - Ahunt (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Checking the user history of the IP address who made the edit it is clear that he is a pro-Nepalese vandal. - Ahunt (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort..and the edits.. But as far as I know bears were not even exported to middle eastern countries.. Outside of USSR/Russia, China ,(& Tu-142M by India) I don't think any other countries USE it presently..
 * Nepal is not a Middle Eastern country. A common understanding of the boundaries of the Middle East is Iran's Eastern border. Afghanistan is part of Central Asia, Pakistan is part of the 'sub-continent'. Nepal is 2 countries away from Iran whether you take the Afghanistan / silk road approach or the coastal sub-continent approach. That sounds almost as ignorant as when Bush referred to Pakistani's are "a shining example of freedom and democracy in the arab world" while staying in India. You may as well say Brazil's official language is Spanish or that Sydney is the capital of Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.81.118 (talk) 05:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Also i think the variants can be expanded a little, considering the fact that the Bears of today have very little in common with the 1950s behemoth except for the airframe... thanks Swraj (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Tu-142
Given that the Tu-142 performs a vastly-differnt role - maritime patrol, not supermodel for NATO interceptor-photographers - I would like to split it off to its own page. There are many articles which refer to the Tu-142, but link to the Tu-95, forcing the reader to hunt for relevant information on the patrol supermodel. This would also move most of the inteception coverage with it, leaving this article to concentrate on the basic strategic bomber variats, and also the relevant derivitves. It will also leave more room in both articles for expansion without having to worry about crowding out the other major variants. In addition, it might not be a bad idea to split off the interception material to a separate pge too. Comments? - BillCJ (talk) 08:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In the absence of any comments, I've been bold and went ahead with the split. Tupolev Tu-142‎ is now up, though the text still needs alot of work. I hope to add some more in the next few days, and to update the specs. - BillCJ (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

simple physics of the CR propellers
somebody should rewrite the following more formally and insert it in the main article since the explanation given now is laughable :

crucial to producing even supersonic air trust with CR props is the fact that two CR blades that are about to meet at near-supersonic speed in absolute terms, *relative to each other* are actually approaching each other at a speed that is way above supersonic. so if the first blade pushes the air at say 800 km/h the second one can give it a ferocious 2nd slap because it actually hits the moving air at 1600+ km/h. the tu 95 could go supersonic no prob without its props' blades going supersonic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.64.226 (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * May I ask a question? If the airplane is already moving at supersonic speed, shouldn't we find a supersonic stall on the first propeller's blades? After all, the speed at which these meet the incoming air is given by the vectorial sum of the aircraft speed and the tangential speed of the propeller, wich are almost at 90º... if the fisrt is already supersonic, the sum (with that angle) can't be below. I would believe that this would be a stress factor significally reducing the maximum speed attainable by the craft. Even jets need to slow down to subsonic the air flow in their intakes, pretty much for the same reason ( to avoid supersonic stall in the first compressor stage). To reach high hig, near sonic speed needs carefully designed propellers, usually recognizable for their shimitar-like shape. Am I right or am I missing something? (I checked the Propeller page. I'm right). 83.50.145.207 (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Supersonic airflow is disastrous to any fanblade or turbine in its path. Supersonic jets have fans and turbines yes, but a great deal of effort goes into slowing down the airflow before it reaches the engine face and the exhaust reaches relative supersonic speed only after leaving the turbine.

It gets more and more complicated the more depth you go into but it is certainly wrong to say "the tu 95 could go supersonic no prob without its props' blades going supersonic".94.175.244.252 (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Videos about this russian bomber
Many sites have videos about this russian bomber.To example, [] has a video about this bomberr.Agre22 (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)agre22

Removal of Encounters list?
Personally, I strongly disagree with the removal of the Encounters in thew air after 2000 list, I found it to be a concise listing that is difficult to find elsewhere. If there are no disagreements after 2 weeks, I will restore the list. 72.35.60.2 (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * While interesting, it really doesn't belong on WP. It's giving undue weight to interceptions that are really quite routine in military operations. There's also no way to know if it's an exaustive list. - BilCat (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Are these sorts of encounters really routine nowadays? Can you give some other examples of "routine" aircraft interceptions?--SkiDragon (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you show they're not routine? - BilCat (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

All I know is that they generate news stories, whereas most routine things do not.--SkiDragon (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Slow news day, they are routine just the military doing the day job. If we listed every such routine "encounter" since the 1950s it would be a very long and not very notable list. MilborneOne (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Tu-116 Merge
User:Petebutt has requested that the Tupolev Tu-116 be deleted as Superfluous, better covered in Tu-95 article., rather than be deleted I have tagged them as a merge, any comment please. MilborneOne (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge does seem sensible - there does seem to be some useful info in the Tu-116 article and if deleted we would need to leave a redirect behind.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur. Since only two of these aircraft were ever completed, I would go ahead with the merge. I also suggest a section explaining its relation with the more successful Tu-114. Cheers, Numero4 (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Add a redirect link to the specific section + merge seems appropriate unless more substantial information on this variant is found. — BQZip01 —  talk 21:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge completedPetebutt (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge. Mark Sublette (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Politicization
It appears that the political hay making of Canada's conservatives over the recent, regular routine Bear flights towards North America has even extended to wikipedia. Please help me keep an eye on the Encounters in the Air section, so that it does not get hacked to uselessness by partizans in the debate. WayeMason (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I spotted the obvious liberal lie that the government is using these flights to make political hay and removed it from the article immediately, as it was unsourced and unproven. Thanks for pointing it out.139.48.25.60 (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The sourced document in the most recent entry for the Canadian encounters references a document from 2009 for an incident in 2010. I removed the reference and the bias either way.
 * “While media reports have portrayed the policy as aggressive and inflammatory, the document is quite moderate in tone and makes it clear that Russia will pursue its interests in the Arctic in accordance with international law and in a co-operative manner,” said a May 13, 2009 briefing note for Mr. MacKay. “There is nothing in this Arctic policy that is cause for alarm.”--Malachite36 (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not writing from Liberal or Conservative points of view, I am writing as someone who has studied defence policy for 20 years, and as a wikipedian. The edits added to re-politicize the article have no citations, and are conjecture rather than factual.  They don't have a place in wikipedia and will be deleted if no citations are provided. WayeMason (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nose Boom?
I've been wondering this for ages, what exactly is the boom/probe/gun looking thing that sticks out from the nose of some Tu-95s? I don't recall seeing this on other aircraft, this could be a useful addition to this article. 71.227.183.252 (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a refueling probe for aerial refueling. Many other aircraft have these (such as Hawker Siddeley Nimrod, MH-60) and some are retractable (F/A-18). It is discussed both in the article and in image captions. If you have more questions, try the WP:Reference Desk or you can contact me on my talk page. Buffs (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tu95bear
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Bombs
The specifications section mentions missiles but nothing about Bombs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.142.39 (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Because the specs are for the Tu-95MS variant which only carried missiles. MilborneOne (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

920 km/h turpoprop?!
Hi,

sooo fast for a big fat 190,000 kg MTOW with "only" 44,000 kW engines?! I thought the World War 2 fighters with a weight of a few thousand kg, but maximum 5% of this aircrafts weight, I know there have been improvied Bf-190 with around 700 km/h, but only because they had a quite short radius and only machine guns, maybe more than a bomber for his self-defense, but I think that is very much wrong......

Kilon22 (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Certainly 920 km/h is reported for the earlier versions which were a bit lighter, not sure the MS is as fast but certainly around 830 km/h according to http://fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-95.htm and nobody would claim these speeds for a fully loaded aircraft. Remember that the NK-12 is probably the most powerful turboprop built. The similar Tu-114 airline could cruise at 770 km/h on the same engines and holds the turboprop world record at 870 km/h. MilborneOne (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

TU-114, the civil airliner derived from the Bear is ?still? the record holder for turbo prop airliners: obviously military speeds are less public. fastest speed given ( but no original reference ) is the Tu-95PZ @910..930km/h — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.214.208.49 (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 09:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)