Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

While I don't question the payload, range and speed capabilities of the Tu-160 bomber I do questions it's avionics, survivability and the training of its crew. Much hype has been made in the press over the deployment of two such bombers to Venezuela. Personally I think it's a non issue, I doubt they would be able to get within close range of the lower 48 undetected in an actual conflict.

For entertainment I offer this enlightening piece by a hopelessly misinformed reporter.

Quote:

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has let virtually all its domestic defenses against manned bomber attacks vanish. The Blackjacks would fly well "under the umbrella" of even Patriot PAC-3 and U.S. Navy Standard Missile-3 anti-ballistic missiles, none of which are designed for manned aircraft interception. The cold fact is that the United States currently has no missile defense system capable of knocking down a Blackjack missile attack or of preventing a cruise missile launch unless combat fighter aircraft -- which are only a few hundred miles per hour faster than the Mach-2 Blackjacks -- can intercept them.

Why People Should Do Research

F-16.net Sponsor

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

If ONLY the U.S. had something in the inventory to deal with manned aircraft threats.

Quote:

Patriot PAC-2 GEM, GEM+, GEM/T, GEM/C
There have been many more upgrades to PAC-2 systems throughout the 1990s and into the 21st century, again mostly centering on software. However, the PAC-2 missiles have been modified significantly, into four separate variants known collectively as "GEM" or "guidance enhanced" missiles.

The chief upgrade to the original GEM missile was a new, much faster proximity fused warhead. Tests had indicated that the fuse on the original PAC-2 missiles were detonating their warheads too late when engaging ballistic missiles with an extremely steep ingress, and as such it was necessary to shorten this fuse delay. The GEM missile was also given a new "low noise" seeker head designed to reduce interference in front of the missiles radar seeker, and a higher performance seeker designed to better detect low radar cross section targets, such as stealth aircraft. The GEM was used extensively in Operation Iraqi Freedom, with a perfect success rate.

Just prior to OIF, it was decided to further upgrade the GEM and PAC-2 missiles. This upgrade program produced missiles known as the GEM/T and the GEM/C, the "T" designator referring to "TBM", and the "C" designator referring to cruise missiles. These missiles were both given a totally new nose section, which was designed specifically to be more effective against low altitude, low RCS targets like cruise missiles. Additionally, the GEM/T was given a new fuse which was further optimized against ballistic missiles. The GEM/C is the upgraded version of the GEM, and the GEM/T is the upgraded version of the PAC-2. The GEM+ entered service in 2002, and the Army is currently having all of its PAC-2 and GEM missiles upgraded to the GEM/C or GEM/T standard.

RIM-66M SM-2 Standard
The RIM-66M is the version of the Standard missile two medium range (SM-2MR) currently in service with the USN aboard Ticonderoga class cruisers, and Arleigh Burke class destroyers. The missile is specifically designed for the Aegis Combat System and the Mk41 Vertical launch system. The Block III missiles differ from earlier blocks by the addition of the MK 45 MOD 9 target detecting device, for improved performance against low altitude targets. The Block IIIB missile additionally has a dual semi-active/infrared seeker for terminal homing. The dual seeker is intended for use in high-ECM environments, against targets over the horizon or with a small radar cross section.[8] The seeker was originally developed for the AIM-7R. All USN Block III and IIIA missiles are to be upgraded to Block IIIB. Block IIIA missiles are operated by the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force on its Kongo class and Atago class Aegis destroyers, and is also by the Dutch and German Navies with the APAR air defense system. Block III variants for Aegis and arm launchers are designated RIM-66L. Block III missiles for New Threat Upgrade systems is designated RIM-66K. Block IIIB missiles were not produced for the New Threat Upgrade.

Gorsh, we just don't have ANYTHING that can shoot down an aircraft anymore. That author is a tool.

Forum Veteran Joined: Dec 15, 2006 - 12:28 AM Posts: 760

IMAO

I do agree that sometimes the blackjacks capability is considerably hyped. However I do think there is a definite threat by the blackjacks. I wouldn’t scoff at their capability even if they are not apparently as capable as their counterparts.

In the 1980s I saw what I think was a drug smuggler flying in and out under the radar in general aviation pontoon sea aircraft to and from the Florida Keys. The aircraft that I watched didn’t seem to have any ECM capability, the only modifications to reduce detection seem to be to the props and exhaust to make the aircraft more quiet (as far as sound) . The pilot flew below or just above the electrical wires over the causeway to the keys. I don’t think the authorities spotted him, because he seemed to do a transaction (offload what was probably drugs) and fly away without any enforcement intervention.

My point is if civilian aircraft can apparently penetrate US coastline undetected then I would think it would be within reason to think possibly that trained military personnel and aircraft could get close to the coast or possibly even penetrate the mainland somewhat without being detected if they were using terrain masking techniques.

Just two blackjacks could cause some major harm to the US and would likely result in MAD, so I doubt that the Putain would be crazy enough to try an attack of that nature on the mainland US. However if the blackjacks end up going under the control of someone like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong-il or the Iranian regime that is crazy enough to try an attack that would likely trigger Armageddon; I think the odds rise significantly to be of worrisome concern.

Another reason I wouldn’t dare scoff at the blackjacks, is take into account the Argentine attack on the British Falkland naval task force. The Argentines did significant damage with A-4 Skyhawks and dumb bombs. Using terrain masking tactics they were able to sneak up on the task force and get into striking range even with dumb bombs. If they were using blackjacks I suspect the outcome would have been much more severe and probably would’ve turned the tide of the war in favor of Argentina.

If the Argentines were able to sneak up on such a well-trained well-equipped alert military task force, I don’t think it’s beyond belief that blackjacks could get close enough to the US coastline (or its interests) or even possibly penetrate the mainland US without being detected. In any case I think it’s well within belief to think that blackjacks could get close enough to our coastline to launch cruise missiles that could do significant damage to the US. The survivability of the aggressors would be nil, and the survival of mankind would be severely suspect.

While it might be possible that we could shoot down aircraft doing terrain masking entering the US, I think it would be very difficult and unlikely. I think it’s quite possible that several aircraft or missiles could get through without being to detected until it’s too late (particularly a sneak attack during peacetime). Though the counter response would likely be Armageddon.

While I do think the original article is somewhat hyped, it does have some merit.

ATFS Crash good points, the case of Mathias Rust comes to mind. However the main thing here is having prior information of a Russian launch. I would be astonished if US satellites and SIGINT/HUMINT resources would be oblivious to a launch of Russian bombers. We could flood the North Atlantic/Pacific/Caribbean with AWACS, AEGIS ships, fighters etc... to detect and intercept any bomber headed for the CONUS. The Tu-160 is hardly a Cessna. While it's not impossible for it to successfully attack the lower 48, I do think that's a highly improbable scenario.

Let's take some other things into consideration.
If there was any chance for russia to make an attack, nukes (wich has always continued to maintain in top shape and also develop) would be a consideration.
So no conventional attack scenario should have an ICBM counterattack, simply because we leave out many factors from a large scale war (first ICBM attack, nuclear submarines etc.)

Now for the Tu-160, those jets are unarguably superior to bones. As far avionics go, there is an upgrade underway, but no knowledge on that. So a discussion about Radar/SAM/interceptor tactics and fast low-level navigation would yeld the best results ! (at least in my humble opinion Smile

)

Cheers, John.

Forum Veteran Joined: Dec 15, 2006 - 12:28 AM Posts: 760

PhillyGuy wrote:

While it's not impossible for it to successfully attack the lower 48, I do think that's a highly improbable scenario.

I think that is largely a matter of opinion and a matter of luck. It largely depends on how you define successful (what you consider to be success).

If you define success as missiles penetrating and detonating in the lower 48; then I think such a scenario is very possible. However though the short-term goal of penetrating and detonating a nuclear missile in the US certainly is possible with such a scenario and to some it may be considered a success, the long-term issue would be a failure for everyone, because it would almost certainly trigger MAD. So to a madman such an attack would be considered successful, however to a sane man such an attack would ultimately be considered a failure even if the mission objective is achieved.

As long as there are reasonably sane leaders in charge think such a missile attack is very unlikely, even if it is possible.

Like it is said such an attack is possible, however by the time the planes that carried out the attack returned to base; there likely wouldn’t be any functional/safe bases to land at. In all likeliness, it essentially would be a suicide mission.

I wouldn’t scoff at the possibility that the Tu-160 could detonate nuclear missiles on the lower 48. I think it’s possible, after all that’s part of the mission it was designed for.

This whole deal was showboating the Tu-160is just a bunch of political posturing and military hardware sales promotion. I think it’s a way for the Soviets to flaunt their muscle and to show that they are still a relevant superpower. I think it’s also a way to express their defiance and to flaunt their anti-American anti-western sentiments. I think it’s a way to try to gain more public support for military spending and a way for the Soviets to flaunt their military toys to promote military sales. I think it also may be a way of protesting the ballistic missile shield and other similar policies.

JpoLgr wrote:

Now for the Tu-160, those jets are unarguably superior to bones.

I disagree. Sure in many respects the Tu-160 is superior; such as size, payload capacity, speed and range. It definitely isn’t something to be scoffed at, it is a formidable weapon that commands respect. However from what I gather it is my opinion that it is even worse than the Bone for readiness. I may be wrong but I suspect that the electronics are not as capable in the blackjack as in the bone.

So there is plenty of room for argument.

@ ATFS_crash:

I) You are absolutely right about the lack of sanity required to trigger the armaggedon. Although possible, highly unlikely.

II) All the recent hype was certainly a political move. Agree on that too.

II) I have no inputs on the operational readiness of the blakjacks, so I have to take your word for it! Count in the small number of the Tu's and there is plenty of room for argument. Wink

Cheers, John.

Guysmiley wrote:

If ONLY the U.S. had something in the inventory to deal with manned aircraft threats.

Quote:

Patriot PAC-2 GEM, GEM+, GEM/T, GEM/C
There have been many more upgrades to PAC-2 systems throughout the 1990s and into the 21st century, again mostly centering on software. However, the PAC-2 missiles have been modified significantly, into four separate variants known collectively as "GEM" or "guidance enhanced" missiles.

The chief upgrade to the original GEM missile was a new, much faster proximity fused warhead. Tests had indicated that the fuse on the original PAC-2 missiles were detonating their warheads too late when engaging ballistic missiles with an extremely steep ingress, and as such it was necessary to shorten this fuse delay. The GEM missile was also given a new "low noise" seeker head designed to reduce interference in front of the missiles radar seeker, and a higher performance seeker designed to better detect low radar cross section targets, such as stealth aircraft. The GEM was used extensively in Operation Iraqi Freedom, with a perfect success rate.

Just prior to OIF, it was decided to further upgrade the GEM and PAC-2 missiles. This upgrade program produced missiles known as the GEM/T and the GEM/C, the "T" designator referring to "TBM", and the "C" designator referring to cruise missiles. These missiles were both given a totally new nose section, which was designed specifically to be more effective against low altitude, low RCS targets like cruise missiles. Additionally, the GEM/T was given a new fuse which was further optimized against ballistic missiles. The GEM/C is the upgraded version of the GEM, and the GEM/T is the upgraded version of the PAC-2. The GEM+ entered service in 2002, and the Army is currently having all of its PAC-2 and GEM missiles upgraded to the GEM/C or GEM/T standard.

RIM-66M SM-2 Standard
The RIM-66M is the version of the Standard missile two medium range (SM-2MR) currently in service with the USN aboard Ticonderoga class cruisers, and Arleigh Burke class destroyers. The missile is specifically designed for the Aegis Combat System and the Mk41 Vertical launch system. The Block III missiles differ from earlier blocks by the addition of the MK 45 MOD 9 target detecting device, for improved performance against low altitude targets. The Block IIIB missile additionally has a dual semi-active/infrared seeker for terminal homing. The dual seeker is intended for use in high-ECM environments, against targets over the horizon or with a small radar cross section.[8] The seeker was originally developed for the AIM-7R. All USN Block III and IIIA missiles are to be upgraded to Block IIIB. Block IIIA missiles are operated by the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force on its Kongo class and Atago class Aegis destroyers, and is also by the Dutch and German Navies with the APAR air defense system. Block III variants for Aegis and arm launchers are designated RIM-66L. Block III missiles for New Threat Upgrade systems is designated RIM-66K. Block IIIB missiles were not produced for the New Threat Upgrade.

Gorsh, we just don't have ANYTHING that can shoot down an aircraft anymore. That author is a tool.

Not to mention the RIM-156 Block IV SM-2ER, and the upcoming SM-6. Plus for dealing with smaller aircraft flying lower you have SLAMRAAM and Avenger.

If need be Patriot PAC 3 can engage aircraft (although it has a shorter range) and so could SM-3. THAAD may also be able to hit a bomber at high altitude.

I dont know why the reporter thinks there are no missiles capable against manned aircraft. Patriot has proved itself pretty well against brit tornado's and USN hornets....

south wrote:

I dont know why the reporter thinks there are no missiles capable against manned aircraft. Patriot has proved itself pretty well against brit tornado's and USN hornets....

I am sure Russian SAMs have shot down quite a few of their own that you never hear about...

I'm thinking the reporter was talking about U.S. missiles. We've got capable SAMs, but we've also got some great fighers, too Thumb

Just too bad we don't have Genies anymore - great warhead for bomber destruction!

JpoLgr wrote:

Now for the Tu-160, those jets are unarguably superior to bones.

Allow me to argue the unarguable. The Tu-160 force was always hampered by their numbers. Not many were built, only 35 or so, and many of those laid in mothballs following the fall of the Soviet Union. Almost half of the Blackjacks ended up parked in a foreign country overnight (Ukraine), which, BTW, did not use them, due to their anti-nuclear stance. So, for over a decade, training lines disappeared, and flying hours ground to a snail's pace.

Meanwhile, the BONE kept flying. Their crews kept training. After the BONE was no longer needed to sit nuclear alert (the reason it was kept out of ODS), B-1 Weapon School opened at Nellis. BONEs flew in major exercises, like Red Flag. Their avionics, and weapon systems improved immensely. Their crews are highly experienced in combat. Now, they have the Sniper pod. The BONE is the real deal.

Sure, the Blackjack is bigger, faster, and actually has a crew rest area, galley and a flushing toilet, but when it comes to delivering a wide array of ordnance, quickly and accurately, I'm going with the BONE.

Oh yeah, plus, the BONE is just a helluva lot sexier! You don't get much better looking than the B-1.

Absolutely gorgeous, TC Thumb

I've gotta say that one of the most impressive sights I've ever seen was when the Bone did the full demo at Miramar. Something that big going that fast that low and that close just takes your mind and wraps it up into a tangle Twisted Evil

I LOVE watching the BONE Demo, and it doesn't get much prettier than watching one takeoff at night time. That was pretty much an every night thing when I was deployed. An unmistakeable sound, followed by seeing the BONE rotate, kicking four 30 foot flames out of its @$$. Impressive. Cool

I also remember seeing one particular airshow demo, where they made a transonic pass over the crowd, looking very much like that second pic above, and near the end of the runway, he pulled it up into a max climb, with the shock waves still surrounding the jet. Way cool!

Quote:

it doesn't get much prettier than watching one takeoff at night time.

Unless of course you've seen the SR-71 do its night time take off, not to take anything away from the Bone of course

Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Tu-160 "White Hype"