Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Jebus on June 18, 2010, 10:47:10 PM
-
Putin Stated that there new fighter plane is better than anything the U.S has in there inventory!
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/06/18/putin-boasts-russias-new-fighter-jet-better-planes/?test=latestnews
:bolt:
-
I guess there is only one way to find out... Probably never know for sure.
I wonder if one could atomize the oil in the Gulf of Mexico right now with a huge bomb and then ignite it. Would the sky catch on fire? or would it turn into a huge fuel/air explosion? Both?
:bolt:
-
Putin Stated that there new fighter plane is better than anything the U.S has in there inventory!
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/06/18/putin-boasts-russias-new-fighter-jet-better-planes/?test=latestnews
:bolt:
That's why they are in the SAM business
-
I really just don't get all of the Cold War-esque rhetoric.
-
I really just don't get all of the Cold War-esque rhetoric.
Russians like to be reminded they have a strong leader. Think of it like a station check that they're still relevant on the world scene.
-
I guess there is only one way to find out... Probably never know for sure.
We'll see. :noid
-
What would they have if we didn't release info on the F22? Heh. If they wanted to copy the F22 we should have just sold it to them.
-
Putin Stated that there new fighter plane is better than anything the U.S has in there inventory!
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/06/18/putin-boasts-russias-new-fighter-jet-better-planes/?test=latestnews
:bolt:
of-course he is going to say that, it's a competition.
-
What would they have if we didn't release info on the F22? Heh. If they wanted to copy the F22 we should have just sold it to them.
I'm not defending them and I'm not saying they did or they did not, but you don't know that.
-
i dont know why Russia has gone public with this........ it just starts up the Arms Race again.
now that we know this plae will be around by 2015, we have five years to build a seriously upgraded version of the F-22 or even an entirely new plane. anyone smell war on the horizon, or is it just me?
:noid
-
See Rule #4
-
The only problem is, Russia only thinks they know everything that's in our inventory. :t
(http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk121/TheAmish/talon-new6.jpg)
-
i dont know why Russia has gone public with this........ it just starts up the Arms Race again.
Because they obviously think they can win an arms race this time, with this country already mired in horrific national debt.
-
We were in a similar situation in the late 70s. It all turned around in the 80s. There is hope.
-
"Putin said the plane would cost up to three times less than similar aircraft in the West and could remain in service for 30 to 35 years with upgrades, according to the report."
Analysis: We cut corners on safety, quality, and reliability in order to build more of them than the West, in a shorter period of time. "Upgrades" will be released as soon as the design specs of Western upgrades can be obtained, reverse engineered and retro-fitted into the airframe. :D
I guess there is only one way to find out... Probably never know for sure.
That all depends on who they sell / lend them to.
-
Analysis: We cut corners on safety, quality, and reliability in order to build more of them than the West, in a shorter period of time. "Upgrades" will be released as soon as the design specs of Western upgrades can be obtained, reverse engineered and retro-fitted into the airframe. :D
+1
-
We were in a similar situation in the late 70s. It all turned around in the 80s. There is hope.
Not so much.
National Debt 1970= $370,918,706,949.93 (GDP of $1,038,500,000,000.00) or .40 of GDP
National Debt 2007= $9,007,653,372,262.48 (GDP of $13,807,500,000,000.00) or .70 of GDP
You cannot expect this to continue and have a bright future or strong military.
-
Because they obviously think they can win an arms race this time, with this country already mired in horrific national debt.
Huh, which country are you talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
wut
Half of the discussion here seems based around the idea that the PAKFA was copied from the F-22. Even the thread title shows it: "Putin says we are better than you" - he actually said that Russian planes are better. Big difference. Additionally, people seem to be instinctively assuming that the F-22 is better...anyone actually got any evidence for this?
-
Half of the discussion here seems based around the idea that the PAKFA was copied from the F-22. Even the thread title shows it: "Putin says we are better than you" - he actually said that Russian planes are better. Big difference. Additionally, people seem to be instinctively assuming that the F-22 is better...anyone actually got any evidence for this?
That's racism? Really?
-
That's racism? Really?
No it's not, its nazzionalism.
-
See Rule #4
-
It looks nearly the same?
-
It looks nearly the same?
Remember F-86 and Mig-15
Half of the discussion here seems based around the idea that the PAKFA was copied from the F-22. Even the thread title shows it: "Putin says we are better than you" - he actually said that Russian planes are better. Big difference. Additionally, people seem to be instinctively assuming that the F-22 is better...anyone actually got any evidence for this?
I think the only real way to find out would be to make a real life (training) engagement, but even that would depend on the pilot so there would have to be a lot more than one. Unless there is a huge difference on paper.
-
Half of the discussion here seems based around the idea that the PAKFA was copied from the F-22. Even the thread title shows it: "Putin says we are better than you" - he actually said that Russian planes are better. Big difference. Additionally, people seem to be instinctively assuming that the F-22 is better...anyone actually got any evidence for this?
This is why I do not not post on this forum anymore. People like this, who can't have a light discussion on a topic. They either have to throw its racist in there or some radical idea. Why not some go old fashion American Patriotism that is all I was going at here. But you had to bring up the R word. Way to go just like everyone else in the world your feelings were hurt because we were just trying to have some American Pride. But I guess that isn't allowed in this world anymore.
I never have been banned or mod in the forum before, but you really crossed the line by calling me a racist!
-
ok well our pilots have about 10 more years of experience in the f22 than these russian pilots do. plus only our government and AF pilots know everything the f22 is capable of therefore putin is only speculating that his plane is better, when actually he has a very litte idea of what the f22 can do in combat. Putin just wants the russians to look strong right now. he would be retarded to start anything with the US. If he sells them to any other country they would be even more retarded to start anything with the US.
-
I have to admit I did sort of post that without actually reading the topic - what I said was based on past observations, not this particular one. Anyway, I guess I've sort of dug myself into a hole here - I'll just sit back and watch the (deserved) flames.
Also, Jebus - that wasn't aimed at you in particular, it's just that I was looking for something to back myself up with, and that's the closest thing I could find. In retrospect 'racism' was definitely the wrong word anyway.
-
"Pride, the never-failing vice of fools." - Alexander Pope
Think the USA can turn this around?
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
As long as US politicians play by rules written by bankers, it will never happen. End the fed and take control of your currency, and you will win not only all your freedoms back but your future as well. The monetary issue is what everything boils down to.
-
Huh, which country are you talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
Exactly my point.
Russia at 30% of debt/GDP. United States 94% of debt/GDP.
Funny how Iran is one of the lowest, at 6% of debt to GDP.
-
Let him yap all he wants. Means nothing.
-
Funny how Iran is one of the lowest, at 6% of debt to GDP.
And people wonder why every free country in the world wants to bomb them. :rolleyes:
-
We should just be happy that wars are not decided on a personal brawl between countries' figureheads... I mean sure, Obama's young, but Putin's... Putin.
-
I'd bet 100 to 1 Puten vrs Obama in a cage fight.
-
Better than my Fa-22 Raptor baby? I DONT THINK SO!
-BigBOBCH
-
See Rule #14
-
See Rule #14
-
I'd bet 100 to 1 Puten vrs Obama in a cage fight.
This would be awesome, I'd love to see that. Obama is more of a putain than Putin ever will be, and Putin is former KGB (meaning he's a ebil bastage) so yes 100 to 1 on Putin. :devil
-
This thread made me laugh........anyone seen the part where it will be servicable? 2015.
Half a decade is a long time. By then the US will be either turning their debt around big time or it wont even matter anymore.
Just remember you only see volunteer numbers over here when it comes to military.
-
Yes they may be better.......better at getting shot down. :rofl
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #4
-
Lol, don't they say that 2 F22's are capable of dealing with upto 12 mig 31's? Lets when the Ruskies bet that, then we'll see. And in the unlikely event that russia and the U.S. square off, it will likely be in the middle east, with what ever resources the two nations have in the area.
-
They also said M16 doesn't need to be cleaned:)
-
It did suprisingly well concidering the level of maintenence it got. And that was the idiot brass believing on blind faith what the designers told them.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
Shouldn't use an incorrect analogy to prove a point.
Japan's defeat in the air didn't have anything do to with allowing the Allies a few years to build up their air forces like you're alluding to. Attrition and the virtual destruction of the infrastructure and resources needed to support the Japanese aerospace industry. Can't field an airforce when you have a severe lack of pilots to man the planes and lack of resources to build planes for whatever left over pilots to fly.
ack-ack
No, it is completely correct. I'm not talking about Japan's ultimate defeat...I'm talking about the defeat of it's fighter forces in combat.
Japan's airpower was second to none in 1940, particularly its' naval force. Best fighter in the Pacific Theater, best trained aircrews all around.
By 1943 revised tactics and training, along with proper use of airframes had reversed this.
Don't ever dismiss a future foe because you believe you have the best of anything...fighter, bomber etc. The best equipment is only as good as the tactics employed. Japan found that out the hard way.
-
Remember F-86 and Mig-15
Yep the Mig-15 was better but we still beatem.
-
I remember hearing that the Mig-15 had some compression issues, is this true?
-
No, it is completely correct. I'm not talking about Japan's ultimate defeat...I'm talking about the defeat of it's fighter forces in combat.
Japan's airpower was second to none in 1940, particularly its' naval force. Best fighter in the Pacific Theater, best trained aircrews all around.
By 1943 revised tactics and training, along with proper use of airframes had reversed this.
Don't ever dismiss a future foe because you believe you have the best of anything...fighter, bomber etc. The best equipment is only as good as the tactics employed. Japan found that out the hard way.
What are we doing in this war.............I dont think your in the military right now or have served in the wars so far(If you have my bad :salute ) but you would know our military is able to adapt pretty darn good.....probably because of lessons learned in the past.....and probably better then any other military in the world.
-
I remember hearing that the Mig-15 had some compression issues, is this true?
I'm not sure about compression but I am pretty sure the Mig-15 was faster could go higher and could climb faster.
-
I'm not sure about compression but I am pretty sure the Mig-15 was faster could go higher and could climb faster.
The Mig-15 could climb faster than a Saber, but I don't believe it could surpass the sound barrier, the Saber could.
-
And in the unlikely event that russia and the U.S. square off, it will likely be in the middle east, with what ever resources the two nations have in the area.
i dont think it's so unlikely anymore..... thats why im trying to stock up on military equipment to protect myself, and prepare for the worst....... Red Dawn, anyone?
:noid
-
Wildcat, no matter how many wars we fight with russia, they aren't going to invade the U.S. by coming up through mexico or canada. And hell, you're on the east cost. The first Ruskie you see holding a gun will be when we invade up through the balkans, or through the middle east.
-
:noid
-
Yep the Mig-15 was better but we still beatem.
My point was that if two aircraft look alike does not mean that one is a copy. And I used Mig-15 & F-86 as an example, not for a performance comparison.
-
Hmmmm....where have I seen this before...?
B-29:
(http://jenntheterrible.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/b29_maxwell_750pix.jpg)
Russian built Tu-4:
(http://www.aviation.ru/contrib/dmaiorana/Tu-4Done2.jpg)
-
See Rule #14
-
See Rule #14
-
I cant really make a comment on either aircraft since Im not a jet fighter junky, but this I know:
I have full faith and confidence in the U.S. and allied pilots (NATO), and the aircraft we will field to combat and defeat anything the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, North Koreans, or other such threat will bring to the table. Training and professionalism will always prevail over new toys and in-adeptness.
-
oops..... just got ye olde flag :uhoh
:lol
-
skuzzy back..
:)
[edit]
Top Gun - North Korean style (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nKuoNhihh4&feature=related)
-
Japan's airpower was second to none in 1940, particularly its' naval force. Best fighter in the Pacific Theater, best trained aircrews all around.
By 1943 revised tactics and training, along with proper use of airframes had reversed this.
I'm sorry but you really need to learn some facts about the Imperial Japanese airforces and how they were beaten. You are so far off the mark it's amazing. Stick to something you know like counting pregnant sea turtles because WW2 is not one of those areas.
ack-ack
-
I'm sorry but you really need to learn some facts about the Imperial Japanese airforces and how they were beaten. You are so far off the mark it's amazing. Stick to something you know like counting pregnant sea turtles because WW2 is not one of those areas.
ack-ack
LOL
-
Sorry, but the russians copied the B-29 and the sturmgewehr.
Where else did they get the Tu-2 and the kalashnikov. Hell, they used the panzerfaust as the idea for their RPG's.
-
Do you have any evidence for the sturmgewehr > kalashnikov and panzerfaust > RPG?
I'm curious
-
Sorry, but the russians copied the B-29 and the sturmgewehr.
Where else did they get the Tu-4 and the kalashnikov. Hell, they used the panzerfaust as the idea for their RPG's.
corrected :aok
-
Sorry, but the russians copied the B-29 and the sturmgewehr.
Where else did they get the Tu-4 and the kalashnikov. Hell, they used the panzerfaust as the idea for their RPG's.
corrected :aok
B-29 had to do an emergency landing in Russia. When Russians returned in to the US each part had it's own box, literally (at least according to what I was told, don't quote me on this).
-
If they did copy the Sturm Gewehr and the Panzerfuast, they greatly improved both weapons.
-
They did improve them, I WILL give them that much.
Tu-4 was pretty much a B-29, so they get no credit for improvment there.
-
Do you have any evidence for the sturmgewehr > kalashnikov and panzerfaust > RPG?
I'm curious
Look at all 4 weapons.....pretty obvious dood. :rofl
-
Look at all 4 weapons.....pretty obvious dood. :rofl
Same thing as I said last time, Mig-15 & F-86
If it looks the same does not mean it's a copy.
-
Same thing as I said last time, Mig-15 & F-86
If it looks the same does not mean it's a copy.
actually, if im thinking correctly, the U.S. copied the F-86 of of the MiG-15, for the delta wings, bubble canopy, sleek fuselage, etc. they took the MiG-15's design and made improvements, such as hydraulic controls (later on), range-finding gunsight, and the elevators being slanted and closer to the fuselage (mind you i dont know what thats called :lol)
-
actually, if im thinking correctly, the U.S. copied the F-86 of of the MiG-15, for the delta wings, bubble canopy, sleek fuselage, etc. they took the MiG-15's design and made improvements, such as hydraulic controls (later on), range-finding gunsight, and the elevators being slanted and closer to the fuselage (mind you i dont know what thats called :lol)
I actually though that the 262 gave both sides the idea for the swept wing. The bubble canopy, the gunsight and the fuselage with the flushed ribeting and all came from the P-51 (same company made it). As for the hydraulic controls I don't think Mig-15 ever had it, not 100% sure on it though.
-
I have no proof that they coppied anything. Just as they have no proof they didn't. You have to take their word on it.
The RPG is essentially a panzerfaust that can be reloaded.
With the Ak-47, the timing seems...interesting at the very least. You must admit that they do bear a family resemblance. It seems it appeared at about the right time for them to have studied and tested captured sturmgewehrs, and then put a modified version into production.
-
The MiG-15 was not a F86 copy. It was a result of the studies on the Ta183. The Swedish SAAB J29 "Flying Barrel" was also a Ta183 derivative.
-
The MiG-15 was not a F86 copy. It was a result of the studies on the Ta183. The Swedish SAAB J29 "Flying Barrel" was also a Ta183 derivative.
it wasnt a copy because the MiG-15 was produced before the saber, the main reason they made the F-86 was so the USAF could have something to combat the MiG
-
I have no proof that they coppied anything. Just as they have no proof they didn't. You have to take their word on it.
The RPG is essentially a panzerfaust that can be reloaded.
With the Ak-47, the timing seems...interesting at the very least. You must admit that they do bear a family resemblance. It seems it appeared at about the right time for them to have studied and tested captured sturmgewehrs, and then put a modified version into production.
What your saying makes sense, however it could have just been "the same weapon" designed by two different people independently (like the jet engine).
Note I am not saying that it is not a copy, just viewing all possibilities.
-
There is that. Likely we will never KNOW, unless a document saying "We coppied the german sturmgewehr and produced it as the AK-47" suddenly turns up. I have my suspicions, but thats all I will likely have.
-
The AK-47 is not a copy of the StG-44, but a development of an earlier Kalashnikov SMG design and is inspired by many earlier designs. (Most things are.)
The AK-47 is best described as a hybrid of previous rifle technology innovations: the trigger, double locking lugs and unlocking raceway of the M1 Garand/M1 carbine, the safety mechanism of the John Browning designed Remington Model 8 rifle, and the gas system and layout of the Sturmgewehr 44. Kalashnikov's team had access to all of these weapons and had no need to "reinvent the wheel", though he denied that his design was based on the German Sturmgewehr 44 assault rifle. Kalashnikov himself observed: "A lot of [Soviet Army soldiers] ask me how one can become a constructor, and how new weaponry is designed. These are very difficult questions. Each designer seems to have his own paths, his own successes and failures. But one thing is clear: before attempting to create something new, it is vital to have a good appreciation of everything that already exists in this field. I myself have had many experiences confirming this to be so."
The PRG-7 is a development of the RPG-2 which is basically a slightly improved Panzerfaust 250, a prototype German weapon.
The MiG-15 and F-86 are both products of German science and thus it is not surprising that they look similar. The only thing that was a pure copy on the MiG was its "British" engine.
The Tu-4 is an almost blueprint copy of the B-29. The Soviets were pretty desperate for a long-range bomber after WWII and the advent of atomic weapons. Luckily for them a number of B-29s made emergency landings in Russia in the final months of the war. The Tu-4 was also the basis for the design of the Tu-95, so you could say that this...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Tu-95_Bear_D.jpg/800px-Tu-95_Bear_D.jpg)
... is in part a Boeing product. ;)
-
So what exactly does Tu-95 have incommon with Tu-4? Besides the part that they both can fly.
-
So what exactly does Tu-95 have incommon with Tu-4? Besides the part that they both can fly.
91 Tu?
-
91 Tu?
Tu-91?
(http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/bomber/tu91/tu91-2.jpg)
I'm confused :headscratch:
-
So what exactly does Tu-95 have incommon with Tu-4? Besides the part that they both can fly.
The fuselage of the craft is still rather similar to the B-29/Tu-4.
-
So what exactly does Tu-95 have incommon with Tu-4? Besides the part that they both can fly.
The fuselage of the craft is still rather similar to the B-29/Tu-4.
Did you mean Tu-95/Tu-4 or B-29/Tu-4?
-
The fuselage of the craft is still rather similar to the B-29/Tu-4.
Did you mean Tu-95/Tu-4 or B-29/Tu-4?
I meant that the Tu-95 still shares similar qualities in its design with the Tu-4.
-
So what exactly does Tu-95 have incommon with Tu-4? Besides the part that they both can fly.
The Tupolev bureau was responsible for retro-engineering the B-29 into the Tu-4. Tupolev pored all that experience and technology into creating the Tu-85 prototype in 1949... Essentially a scaled up Tu-4:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ee/Tu-85front.jpg)
It never entered into production, but in 1951 Tupolev got approval to design a turboprop version designated Tu-95. By adding four 12,000 hp turboprop engines and sweeping back the wings the supersized B-29 copy became the Cold War icon we all know as the Bear.
If you look at them side by side the heritage is unmistakable.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/B-29_in_flight.jpg/800px-B-29_in_flight.jpg)(http://www.ausairpower.net/Tu-95MR-Bear-E-1.jpg)
-
The Tupolev bureau was responsible for retro-engineering the B-29 into the Tu-4. Tupolev pored all that experience and technology into creating the Tu-85 prototype in 1949... Essentially a scaled up Tu-4:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ee/Tu-85front.jpg)
It never entered into production, but in 1951 Tupolev got approval to design a turboprop version designated Tu-95. By adding four 12,000 hp turboprop engines and sweeping back the wings the supersized B-29 copy became the Cold War icon we all know as the Bear.
If you look at them side by side the heritage is unmistakable.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/B-29_in_flight.jpg/800px-B-29_in_flight.jpg)(http://www.ausairpower.net/Tu-95MR-Bear-E-1.jpg)
I disagree. Your right that orijinally they started working with the Tu-4 but eventually ended up building something totally different.
Tu-95 - Tu-4 differences:
Different Cockpit (nose)
Swept back wings
Different type of engines
different horizontal and vertical stabilizers
no fuselage gun positions
The only thing that I find the same is the gear
Crappy picture but here is the nose:
(http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/8809/495b.jpg)
I removed the refueling boom from the picture
-
I did not say they were the same. I said they were similar.
It's like comparing a Hawk and a Humming bird. They both are quite unique, but have similar elements.
Hawk has talons, and agressive beak, while Humming bird has neither, yet their wing and skeletal structures are similar.
-
See your not saying that F-22 is a copy of a B-25 because it has wings, 2 engines, 2 V stabilizers, and a cockpit. All airplanes will be similar because they can fly.
-
I don't think we're getting anywhere with this. We're entitled to out opinion, lets just leave it at that.
I don't think there are any facts.
-
I've never said they were copies, I would not have used the Hawk:Hummingbird analogy if that was the case.
At any rate, hijack over, you may have your thread back.
-
What was the origional topic? All the OP said is that the Ruskies had a new fighter, and left us to turn that into whatever the hell we felt like.
-
I've never said they were copies, I would not have used the Hawk:Hummingbird analogy if that was the case.
rgr
-
Of all of the descendants of the Boeing B-29, the Tupolev Bear is the most remarkable. The Bear is a mainstay of Russia's strategic aviation forces and a key element in Russian naval strategy, being currently in production to support at least one of these roles. The new Bear H is Russia's first cruise missile carrier and as such has led the United States to deploy an immense network of Over-The Horizon (OTH) radars, quite a feat for a design of the Bear's age.
The origin of the Bear may be traced back to 1945, when several USAAF B-29 aircraft, severely damaged by Japanese defences, landed in Russian territory. While the crews were repatriated, the B-29s never left Siberia. Engineers from the Tupolev and Shvetsov bureaus, despatched from their plants, proceeded to strip the aircraft down to the last component, analysing and documenting all.
In 1945, Russian bomber design was at its worst for decades, the only production four engined bomber being of prewar design and hopelessly inadequate in comparison with the USAF's B-29 fleet. Russia needed a capable bomber to project its newly acqui red nuclear capability and copying the B-29 was the least painful way of getting one. It is to the credit of the robust B-29 that it could be successfully produced in an industrial infrastructure as obsolete as that of the USSR in 1949.
Hailed as a fully Soviet design, the Tu-4 Bull first flew in 1947 and entered series production in 1949, 1200 were eventually built. The Russians copied the airframe, powerplants, systems and the unique fire control system which remotely controlled the four gun turrets. The notable difference between the aircraft was in the Russian installation of NS-23 cannon in preference to the 50 calibre guns of the B-29.
While the Tu-4 provided Russia with a credible nuclear strike force, the US deployment of the B-50, B-36 and B-47 made it quite apparent that a more capable aircraft was required. The Tupolev bureau developed the Tu-4 design into the larger Tu-80 and Tu-85, eventually adopting the characteristic glazed nose and stepped forward fuselage used to this date.
Neither of these aircraft was considered successful and the Russians turned to their newly developed turbojets and turboprops, thus spawning two major families of aircraft - the Badger and the Bear.
The Tupolev Tu-95
The Badger and the Bear were both evolutionary and revolutionary in Russian aircraft design. The evolutionary aspect was in the design of the fuselage and systems, which directly illustrated their Boeing heritage. The revolutionary aspect was in the application of a swept wing and turbine powerplants.
The Tu-95 was designed in 1951/52 and first flew in 1955. The fuselage of the Tu-95 resembles that of the B-29 in many respects, it is circular in cross-section, with a pressurised shell fore of the wings, has substantial structure to support the thick wing roots below and behind which is situated a weapon bay. The fuselage behind the wing retains the general configuration of its ancestor, although it appears that only a single pressurised shell is used in most versions, below the vertical stabiliser; this contains the aft gunner/operators' stations. The tailplane is raised somewhat above the fuselage and a tail gunner's station is situated at the end of the fuselage. Unlike the B-29 with gunners stationed just aft of the wing, the Tu-95 gunner(s) have two large observation blisters below the tailplane. The Tu-95 did however retain part of the remotely controlled gun turret system of the Tu-4, with a retractable dorsal and a ventral barbette each containing a pair of 23mm NR-23 cannon.
The glazed nose of the aircraft housed the navigator/bombardier's station and is followed by a conventional flight deck with dual controls. The forward fuselage almost certainly houses additional stations for systems operators (eg. attack radar in later derivatives), a gunner and possibly a mission commander or political officer (this would not be a unique strategy, Japanese bombers such as the Betty carried a commanders' seat just aft and slightly above the pilots' stations and in view of the high degree of KGB control over nuclear systems during the 1950s and 1960s would almost seem the natural solution). The fuselage weapon bay is situated below and aft of the wing roots, it could fit several high yield nuclear devices. It is not clear whether the fuselage tunnel connecting the forward and rear pressurised areas as used in the Tu-4 was retained, although it would have made some sense given the expected duration of sorties.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yA8qDIdIKI&feature=related
Time code 1:50