What would happen if the Soviets managed to capture and reverse-engineer a B-52?
WI: Soviets reverse-engineer B-52
- Thread starter Alternate History Geek
- Start date
Delta Force
Banned
The B-52 is such a basic design the Soviets wouldn't need to capture one to come up with a something similar.
They already have the Tu-95, which is roughly equipment. They might get a bit of knowledge about specific American equipment, the vast majority of which will be outdated in a few years' time.
Orville_third
Banned
Tu-95 is a turboprop. B-52 is a jet. Of course a Vietnam-era B-52 would still be a 50's era design, with some 60's tech.
(Trivia: The Tu-95 was one of the few Soviet aircraft whose NATO reporting name was used in Russia. Pilots said, "It couldn't be anything but a Bear."
I expect they'd learn the lesson, if they hadn't already, that the US learned with B29s in Korea: flying big fat subsonic buses into any airspace held by effective modern air defenses is costly. You have to control the airspace first; so I doubt you'd see them lining up against US or NATO forces.
Laying the pointlessness of the exercise aside, I can imagine Mikhail Gantov, a semi-psychotic English-speaking Georgian ace bomber pilot being approached by agents of the GRU suggesting that if he wants his puppy dog to live, he will infiltrate Edwards AFB, and steal a B-52.
The next big question burning in my mind is...What is the NATO reporting name for this new B-52 clone?
Backstab
Beeblebrox
Boxstore.........
The next big question burning in my mind is...What is the NATO reporting name for this new B-52 clone?
Backstab
Beeblebrox
Boxstore.........
The Bear is a very capable aircraft. Fastest propeller speed ever recorded was an airliner version of the Bear (more properly the Tu-114). The B-52 is less than 100 mph faster, a speed that is of little difference when flying a sub-sonic bomber against Mach 2.5 interceptors and Mach 3 SAM.
What the B-52 has that the Bear never did is/was a true non nuclear mission. This is more a matter of national tactical thought than anything to do with the aircraft themselves. The Bear could loft 33,000 pound of bombs, but it was never really even considered to fill a tactical role like the one the USAF has slotted the B-52 into so nicely.
NothingNow
Banned
They did develop it into a pretty solid MPA platform in the Tu-142, and they've used it for pretty much everything else though.
As for the Tu-114, the only thing anyone really ever had against it were it's short range compared to the IL-62, and the noise. Other than that it was fairly efficient for the period, and an excellent long-haul airliner.
The VVS and Soviet Navy wouldn't know what to do with a BUFF clone anyway. Maybe they'd use it in place of the Myasishchev M-4 as a tanker? Use it in an anti-shipping role as a bigger Tu-16?
It's not like they'd drop the Tu-22M for a subsonic design, or that the B-52 was significantly better than the Bear as a strategic bomber. And the VVS always preferred smaller types when looking for tactical bombers.
exactly
and the military continues to operate new Turboprops where it's relevant e.g. Tucano,. Herc, A400 Atlas ...
33000 lbs is comparable with the V-Bombers as a conventional load
the Vulcan could carry 21000lbs as could the Valiant
the Victor has a 35000lbs conventional bomb load due to not being space limited in the way the other 2 were