PDA

View Full Version : Bear - TU-95xx and TU142xx


Opssys
31st Oct 2005, 10:53
Whilst the 'What Cockpit?' relay team appear to be taking a breather, they are so far ahead, I cannot even tell if their dust cloud has settled.

I thought some of you who were intrigued by Gainsey's TU-95MS Cockpit picture, which provoked a short but interesting exchange between messrs, Mike Jenvey, forget, tiger_mate with an aside from BEagle, on the TU-95/TY142 Cockpit , may feel the folowing snippet explains the close similarity:

The first production TU-95's were delivered in 1955. and development has continued ever since, although with many long breaks in the production of brand new aircraft. In the mid-60's one variant broke from the TU-95 development path sufficiently as to be given new design designation of TU-142. However later production versions integrated elements of both types reviving the TU-95 Designation. Production finally ceased in the mid 1990's (this cannot be taken as a given, as Production has 'finally ceased' several times before). The late model TU-95MS version is expected to continue in service until 2015.

For those who wish for more information on the TU-95/Tu-142 Variants, all of which have the NATO Code Name of Bear, then see the: (FAS) TU-95 Page (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-95.htm)

Some of you may even be vaguely interested in Dyagilevo AB mentioned in Gainsey's follow up and above. In which case the link is:

Global Security's Dyagilevo AB Page (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/dyagilevo.htm)

Gainesy
1st Nov 2005, 11:49
What the Global security page does not mention is the bomber "museum" on the base. Gimme a few days and I'll forage the attic for pics.

Opssys
1st Nov 2005, 19:37
Hi Gainsey.

What the Global security page does not mention is the bomber "museum" on the base. Gimme a few days and I'll forage the attic for pics.

Hope you find them as they would be most interesting!

Aside:
More general note Global Security tend to be 'jolly serious' in their descriptions and summaries, so they probably considered any non strategic/ non macro economic information a bit 'frivolous' for their target audience (whoever they are). Good site all the same :-)
End Aside

DIH