# Could a Tu-95 Bear bomber be landed on a Nimitz class carrier? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 20, 2015, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-tu-95-bear-bomber-be-landed-on-a-nimitz-class-carrier/720450 "2015-05-20T22:30:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2015, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-tu-95-bear-bomber-be-landed-on-a-nimitz-class-carrier/720450/21 "2015-05-21T15:06:18Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > Colloquially, what’s the distinction? Colloquially, there’s no distinction. The OP seemed to be using it as a term of art. The manual largely describes US practice rather than the actual state of international law (particularly the part about consent to inspection.) But the point is that the ship is a vehicle rather than part of a sovereign state, even though it is treated as part of the state in some ways. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2015, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-tu-95-bear-bomber-be-landed-on-a-nimitz-class-carrier/720450/22 "2015-05-21T15:30:35Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > On the high seas, it’s as close as you can get. > > Yes, you could land a Bear on the Nimitz. But only once. And it would depend on your definition of landing. 😉 Any landing you can walk away from is a good one. Any landing where you get to use the plane again is a GREAT landing. ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2015, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-tu-95-bear-bomber-be-landed-on-a-nimitz-class-carrier/720450/23 "2015-05-21T15:58:49Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Colloquially, there’s no distinction. The OP seemed to be using it as a term of art. > > The manual largely describes US practice rather than the actual state of international law (particularly the part about consent to inspection.) But the point is that the ship is a vehicle rather than part of a sovereign state, even though it is treated as part of the state in some ways. I agree with you that warships aren’t part of the land territory of a state, and their presence can’t be used to justify additional powers for the state over a region (like an EEZ) in the way that actual land territory could be used. But the [Convention on the High Seas](http://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/8_1_1958_high_seas.pdf) at Article 8, and the [Convention on the Law of the Sea](http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm) at Articles 30-32, are both explicit that warships are part of the sovereign and share in its sovereign immunity. Nothing prevents the coastal state from expelling the warship from its territorial sea, of course. Or going after the warship’s flag state for damages caused by the warship. Any inspections of a warship or jurisdiction over it or its crew, are going to be governed by a visiting forces or status of forces agreement where the flag state agreed to surrender some of its immunity. We’re probably agreeing, and the whole topic is a big leap from the question of whether a Bear can land on a Nimitz anyway. Thank you very much **LSLGuy** for your extremely informative answer and walking us through the reasoning. That a Bear’s landing gear could probably handle a carrier landing—once—is perhaps the most surprising estimate for me. I thought it would have collapsed. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2015, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-tu-95-bear-bomber-be-landed-on-a-nimitz-class-carrier/720450/24 "2015-05-21T16:28:03Z")
What about if you deliberately landed it with landing gear up and scraped along the deck? would that shorten the landing distance? Or would it just result in an uncontrollable path where you plummet off the deck to left or right? Remember we are just talking about the defectors landing, not about the plane being in any way usable afterwards. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2015, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-tu-95-bear-bomber-be-landed-on-a-nimitz-class-carrier/720450/25 "2015-05-21T16:31:59Z")
So what we need is two carriers line astern; simples! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2015, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-tu-95-bear-bomber-be-landed-on-a-nimitz-class-carrier/720450/26 "2015-05-21T16:50:42Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > Remember we are just talking about the defectors landing, not about the plane being in any way usable afterwards. In that case, you might as well just jump from the plane and let it go on its way. Defectors usually bring their aircraft with them because they know they’ll be more valuable that way. The receiving country tests the plane and strips it down to garner whatever useful information it can and then sends it back. See [Victor Belenko](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Belenko), for example (though he went to Japan.) ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2015, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-tu-95-bear-bomber-be-landed-on-a-nimitz-class-carrier/720450/27 "2015-05-21T17:11:20Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > Which leaves us with landing length: And this one is truly an epic, epic fail, IMO. How much modification to the Tu-95 is going to be allowed for this admittedly pointless exercise and how flight worthy is it going to have to remain afterwards? After the Operation Eagle Claw/Desert One debacle, a crash program for a second rescue attempt of the hostages in Iran was created with the basis of converting a C-130 into a super-STOL, [Operation Credible Sport](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Credible_Sport). The resultant highly modified XFC-130H was to take off in the US, perform five in-flight refuelings, land on and take off from the Amjadieh Football Stadium, and then land on an aircraft carrier. Taking off from, much less landing on the Amjadieh Stadium was a far shorter landing strip than had ever been considered and: > [@](#): > > After Lockheed was requested on 27 June 1980, to begin preliminary engineering studies on an STOL Hercules, the use of JATO units was explored, since these had previously been used to power takeoffs.[5] Lockheed reported on 16 July that 58 JATO bottles (more than seven times greater than normal) would be required and that arresting gear would be insufficient to stop the C-130 in the required space. The U.S. Navy’s Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake organization was then brought into the project to provide expertise on existing rocket motor power. Lockheed proceeded with work to structurally reinforce the C-130 airframe to withstand rocket forces and to develop a passenger restraint system for 150 persons.[6] > > The resulting XFC-130H aircraft were modified by the installation of 30 rockets in multiple sets: eight forward-pointed ASROC rocket motors mounted around the forward fuselage to stop the aircraft, eight downward-pointed Shrike rockets fuselage-mounted above the wheel wells to brake its descent, eight rearward-pointed MK-56 rockets (from the RIM-66 Standard missile) mounted on the lower rear fuselage for takeoff assist, two Shrikes mounted in pairs on wing pylons to correct yaw during takeoff transition, and two ASROCs mounted at the rear of the tail to prevent it from striking the ground from over-rotation. There’s a video on youtube [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etzqmtYcpCQ) with horribly cheesy music. I don’t know if a Tu-95 could structurally survive 8 or more forward firing ASROC motors, if that would be a requirement for a successful landing, or how the captain of the Nimitz would feel about the scorch marks on the deck, but it does show that large planes can be modified to land on and take off from much smaller areas than they were designed for. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2015, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-tu-95-bear-bomber-be-landed-on-a-nimitz-class-carrier/720450/28 "2015-05-21T17:17:25Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > … I don’t know if a Tu-95 could structurally survive 8 or more forward firing ASROC motors, if that would be a requirement for a successful landing, or how the captain of the Nimitz would feel about the scorch marks on the deck, but it does show that large planes can be modified to land on and take off from much smaller areas than they were designed for. Tres cool. I hadn’t seen that before. Modifications with an unlimited budget know almost no bounds. With enough helicopter blades and retro-rockets we could make the TU-95 hover. Or with enough extra thrust, make the Nimitz go 140 knots. But now we’re getting silly, as opposed to just dumb. Fun to think about though. On the diplomatic front I’m gonna suggest a military ship at sea is legally about as sovereign as an embassy. At least to the level of detail we care about here. Certainly over the years many survivors and defectors from ships and subs have been taken aboard by military vessels from the other side. This is pretty settled law and practice. ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2015, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-tu-95-bear-bomber-be-landed-on-a-nimitz-class-carrier/720450/29 "2015-05-21T17:32:40Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > How much modification to the Tu-95 is going to be allowed for this admittedly pointless exercise and how flight worthy is it going to have to remain afterwards? After the Operation Eagle Claw/Desert One debacle, a crash program for a second rescue attempt of the hostages in Iran was created with the basis of converting a C-130 into a super-STOL, [Operation Credible Sport](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Credible_Sport). The resultant highly modified XFC-130H was to take off in the US, perform five in-flight refuelings, land on and take off from the Amjadieh Football Stadium, and then land on an aircraft carrier. Taking off from, much less landing on the Amjadieh Stadium was a far shorter landing strip than had ever been considered and:There’s a video on youtube [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etzqmtYcpCQ) with horribly cheesy music. > > I don’t know if a Tu-95 could structurally survive 8 or more forward firing ASROC motors, if that would be a requirement for a successful landing, or how the captain of the Nimitz would feel about the scorch marks on the deck, but it does show that large planes can be modified to land on and take off from much smaller areas than they were designed for. The wing catches fire and falls off around 2:10 in the video. I’m assuming that’s at least part of what killed the program? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2015, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-tu-95-bear-bomber-be-landed-on-a-nimitz-class-carrier/720450/30 "2015-05-21T17:52:56Z")
> [@Ethilrist](#): > > Any landing you can walk away from is a good one. Any landing where you get to use the plane again is a GREAT landing. Any plane can be used again for scrap metal. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2015, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-tu-95-bear-bomber-be-landed-on-a-nimitz-class-carrier/720450/31 "2015-05-21T18:20:02Z")
> [@muldoonthief](#): > > The wing catches fire and falls off around 2:10 in the video. I’m assuming that’s at least part of what killed the program? Partly; that and Carter losing the election on November 4th. The crash happened on October 29th: > [@](#): > > The first fully modified aircraft (74–1683) was delivered on 17 October to TAB 1 (Wagner Field/Eglin AF No. 1), a disused auxiliary airfield at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Between 19 October and 28 October, numerous flights were made testing various aspects, including the double-slotted flaps system, which enabled the C-130 to fly at 85 knots on final approach at a very steep eight-degree glide slope. All aspects worked flawlessly, and a full profile test was scheduled for 29 October. > > The test’s takeoff phase was executed flawlessly, setting a number of short takeoff records. The Lockheed test crew then assessed that the computer used to command the firing of the rockets during the landing sequence needed further calibration, and elected to manually input commands. The reverse-mounted (forward-facing) eight ASROC rockets for decelerating the aircraft’s forward speed were situated in pairs on the fuselage’s upper curvature behind the cockpit, and at the midpoint of each side of the fuselage beneath the uppers. Testing had determined that the upper pairs, fired sequentially, could be ignited while still airborne (specifically, at 20 feet), but that the lower pairs could only be fired after the aircraft was on the ground, with the descent-braking rockets also firing during the sequence. > > The flight engineer, blinded by the firing of the upper deceleration rockets, thought the aircraft was on the runway and fired the lower set early. The descent-braking rockets didn’t fire at all. Later unofficial disclaimers allegedly made by some of the Lockheed test crew’s members asserted that the lower rockets fired themselves through an undetermined computer or electrical malfunction, which at the same time failed to fire the descent-braking rockets. > > As a result, the aircraft’s forward flight was immediately reduced to nearly zero, dropping it hard to the runway and breaking the starboard wing between the third and fourth engines. During rollout, the trailing wing ignited a fire, but a medical evacuation helicopter dispersed the flame and crash response teams extinguished the fire within eight seconds of the aircraft stopping, enabling the crew to safely exit the aircraft. 74-1683 was dismantled and buried on-site for security reasons, but most of its unique systems were salvaged. > > 74-1686 was nearly ready for delivery, but the defeat of Jimmy Carter by Ronald Reagan in the 1980 U.S. presidential election, and the Algerian-negotiated release plan led to the rescue mission plan’s cancellation. The hostages were subsequently released concurrent with Reagan’s inauguration in January 1981. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2015, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-tu-95-bear-bomber-be-landed-on-a-nimitz-class-carrier/720450/32 "2015-05-21T18:29:40Z")
This is kinda cool. I had no idea that they were practically designing new aircraft for the hostage rescue. ---
**Author:** ![Atomic\_Alex](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atomic_alex/32/175_2.png) [@Atomic\_Alex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atomic_Alex)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2015, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-tu-95-bear-bomber-be-landed-on-a-nimitz-class-carrier/720450/33 "2015-05-21T19:36:01Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > I agree it’s “no” and by a large margin. But as the OP said, let’s show our work. > > It’s clear that in the real world an actual USN carrier on patrol would never consent to a supposedly-defecting TU-95 getting close. So we’ll assume this is some sort of pre-arranged test, USN observers aboard the TU-95, RusNav observers aboard the carrier, etc. So we’re just interested in the flight-ops issues of landing, not the whole military/tactical perspective. > > \ > > Given the certainty of going off the bow, I’m not sure how to handicap choosing between aiming for the very stern and having a 50/50 shot at catching a wingtip on the island, but getting an extra 200 feet of run-out versus aiming for the beginning of the wider part of the deck and landing 200’ closer to the inevitable bow drop into the sea. Wow, talk about a comprehensive answer! 🙂 > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I feel compelled to point out that a carrier flight deck is not “US territory.” Its close enough for government work! > [@coremelt](#): > > What about if you deliberately landed it with landing gear up and scraped along the deck? would that shorten the landing distance? Or would it just result in an uncontrollable path where you plummet off the deck to left or right? > > Remember we are just talking about the defectors landing, not about the plane being in any way usable afterwards. I don’t think sliding would reduce the stopping length much, it might even make matters worse? It would certainly be a rougher impact. ---
**Author:** ![Ranger\_Jeff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranger_jeff/32/2065_2.png) [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2015, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-tu-95-bear-bomber-be-landed-on-a-nimitz-class-carrier/720450/34 "2015-05-21T22:23:06Z")
Here’s how I look at the question. An experienced Naval Aviator (a Naval Aviator is a Pilot who is carrier qualified) with hundreds of carrier landings in aircraft specifically designed to be able to land on a carrier needs the assistance of a Landing Safety Officer and the bridge crew to land safely on the carrier. I don’t think a pilot with NO experience landing on a carrier flying an aircraft that was never intended to land on a carrier that was never designed to have an aircraft that large and heavy landed on it with no assistance from the bridge and no LSO to guide it down has a whelk’s chance in a super nova of making a landing. ---
**Author:** ![Fubaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@Fubaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fubaya)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2015, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-tu-95-bear-bomber-be-landed-on-a-nimitz-class-carrier/720450/35 "2015-05-22T00:16:31Z")
The [arresting barricade](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arresting_gear#Barricade) stanchions of the Mk 7 Mod 3 arresting system are 130ft apart. Would losing 15ft off each wing be ok? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2015, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-tu-95-bear-bomber-be-landed-on-a-nimitz-class-carrier/720450/36 "2015-05-22T01:49:24Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I feel compelled to point out that a carrier flight deck is not “US territory.” Actually, it’s referred to as US territory. 4.5 acres of US territory IIRC. ETA _Each carrier is sovereign U.S. territory_ > **[Submarines, Carriers, Cruisers & Other Vessels | Navy.com](https://www.navy.com/vessels?q=life-in-the-navy%2Fvessels)** > > Learn about the vessels of the U.S. Navy. Explore submarines, carriers, cruisers, destroyers, amphibious craft, combat ships, and the USS New York. ---
**Author:** ![Obtenebrate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/9f8e36/32.png) [@Obtenebrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Obtenebrate)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2015, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-tu-95-bear-bomber-be-landed-on-a-nimitz-class-carrier/720450/37 "2015-05-22T09:59:39Z")
> [@Fubaya](#): > > The [arresting barricade](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arresting_gear#Barricade) stanchions of the Mk 7 Mod 3 arresting system are 130ft apart. Would losing 15ft off each wing be ok? Having worked on a Nimitz, you bring up a good point with the barricade, but are probably underestimating the damage. From what I was told, use of the barricade pretty much garaunteed the aircraft was going to be hauled off to depot level maintenance once we were back in port and quite possibly the airframe would be considered unsalvageable. And that’s for planes that were **supposed** to land on one. Much like air dropping, you can probably land anything on a carrier the once. The pilot would sharply regret doing so, however. ---
**Author:** ![Hail\_Ants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dc4da7/32.png) [@Hail\_Ants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hail_Ants)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2015, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-tu-95-bear-bomber-be-landed-on-a-nimitz-class-carrier/720450/38 "2015-05-22T21:40:09Z")
As I said above, a Tu-95 intact would not be worth the risk. Certainly not today but even at the height of the cold war its value would be in capturing the avionics and assorted electronic technology (and its flight crew), not the air frame itself. It would have certainly been a political & propaganda coup, but there was nothing super-secret about the aerodynamics or power plants of the Bear. It was just a turboprop B-52… ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2015, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-tu-95-bear-bomber-be-landed-on-a-nimitz-class-carrier/720450/39 "2015-05-23T03:42:37Z")
well the Tu-95 was the Soviet Unions primary intercontinental nuclear bomber. So presumably it has some pretty sophisticated encryption comms for communicating authorisation to enable the nuclear weapons on board. And hopefully the Soviet Union also had a permissive action link system to stop a rogue crew from dropping nuclear weapons without authorisation. The US would have been very keen to know the details of that. So yeah, during the cold war I’m pretty sure that the US would have been pretty keen to get their hands on one with a cooperative crew and all the crypto intact. Ok sure not keen enough to let them land on an aircraft carrier but I bet they would have gone out of there way in many other ways to get one. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2015, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-tu-95-bear-bomber-be-landed-on-a-nimitz-class-carrier/720450/40 "2015-05-23T03:53:37Z")
> [@Disposable Hero](#): > > I’m pretty sure the answer is a very firm “No”, but I’ve been surprised before. > > I’m currently reading ‘Bear: Flight to Liberty’ by Miguel Vargas-Caba which has as its premise a fictional Bear bomber crew defecting to the West. At one point, after the crew has decided to defect but are still working out the details of their plan they are on a routine intelligence gathering flight over a US carrier battle group. > > What if the pilot just decided, “Screw it, that’s US territory, I’m taking this baby down”, having checked the relative sizes of ship and aircraft I’m guessing it would be a pretty impressive boom, especially with a complement of planes onboard, but is there any way he could pull it off? > > Спасибо! Do you care if the crew and maybe a bunch of folks on the air craft carrier die? If not then you could probable steam the carrier into the wind, have the bomber crew fly at the lowest speed they could without stalling, then pull up above the carrier deck and stall the bomber. With a lot of luck and some really exceptional timing you might be able to have the thing crash on the deck, probably killing the crew and damaging the air craft carrier but have the bomber ‘land’ in a kind of sort of way (i.e. not fall off the deck into the ocean, and hopefully not blow up). A quick google search shows the landing speed of a TU-95 as 150 knots (~170 mph)…so, if the head wind is, say 50 mph, and the carrier is steaming at 40 knots, then the bomber pilot just has to skim along the water, pull up at the right moment to kill his air speed, stall and then drop to the deck, nose up and in full pucker mode! Simple really. 😛 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-tu-95-bear-bomber-be-landed-on-a-nimitz-class-carrier/720450.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-tu-95-bear-bomber-be-landed-on-a-nimitz-class-carrier/720450.md?page=3)