Pages

Monday, February 6, 2023

Russian Bombers

It’s always a good idea to know your enemy’s capabilities.  Let’s take a look, today, at Russia’s bomber force.

 

As you know, during the Cold War the Soviet Union’s main counter to US carrier groups was long range bombers armed with long range cruise missiles.  The US and the Soviet Union played a continual cat and mouse game with the Soviet Union attempting to find US carriers and simulate attacks while the US carriers tried to hide and detect the Soviet bombers and intercept them far enough away to demonstrate that they could prevent an attack.

 

Today, much of the Russian bomber force has fallen into disrepair and most of what’s left is obsolete.  However, what exists is still a potential threat especially given our greatly reduced air wings and shorter ranged aircraft.

 

Wiki lists the current active bomber force as: (1)

 

 

Aircraft

Yrs Built

Built

Active

Range

Tu-160 Blackjack

‘80s-‘90s

27

16

4000 nm

Tu-22M Backfire

‘70s-‘90s

497

69

1500 nm

Tu-95 Bear

‘50s-‘90s

500+

60

9400 nm

 

 

 

As seen, the numbers of active aircraft are very small and likely overstated even at those reduced levels due to poor maintenance.  In a war, the aircraft would be a nuisance but not a serious, on-going threat.

 

 

Here’s some specs and features of the aircraft:

 

Tu-160 Blackjack

 

-       Speed = Mach 2

-       Combat radius 4000 nm

-       Produced 1984-1992

-       Built 27

-       Currently active qty=16

-       2x internal weapon bays;  2x rotary launchers each holding 6x AS-15 Kent subsonic cruise missiles with 1350 nm range

-       Payload = 88,000 lbs

-       Swing wing

-       Russian version of US B-1

-       Currently undergoing modest modernizations although industrial, financial, and quality issues are significantly impacting the effort.

 

Tu-160 Blackjack


Tu-22M Backfire

 

-       Speed = Mach 1.9

-       Combat radius = 1500 nm

-       Produced ‘70s-‘90s

-       Built 497

-       Currently active qty = 69

-       Internal weapons bay, fuselage and wing pylons

-       Payload = 53000 lbs

-       Major update to the Tu-22 Blinder

-       Swing wing

 

Tu-22M Backfire

 

Tu-95 Bear

 

-       Speed = 510 kts

-       Combat radius = 4000 nm

-       Produced 1952-1994

-       Built 500+

-       Currently active qty= 60

-       Wing pylons

-       Payload 33,000 lb    

-       4x propeller engines with dual contra-rotating props

 

Tu-95 Bear


Technology.  The bombers are all basically 1970’s era technology.  While some of the aircraft have undergone modernizations, the effectiveness of that effort is questionable.  For example, no amount of modernization can turn a large, non-stealthy aircraft into a stealthy, penetrating bomber (consider our own B-52!).  In addition, Russian quality control is notoriously poor and the Ukraine war has demonstrated that Russian systems have performed well below expectations.  There is no reason to believe that their aircraft upgrades have fared any better.

 

Weapons.  While the numbers of active aircraft are quite small, the weapons they carry are reasonably formidable and constitute a serious threat.

 

Kh-15 (AS-16 Kickback)  Mach 5, 160 nm, may be retired from service

Kh-22 (AS-4 Kitchen)  1960’s tech,  Mach 4.6, 320 nm

Kh-32  updated Kh-22, updated, anti-ship, long range

Kh-47M2 Kinzhal  hypersonic, long range, ?accuracy issues?

 

It should be noted, however, that most Russian cruise missiles are older generation and far less of a threat than current, state of the art missiles.  In addition, reports from Ukraine suggest that the Kinzhal may suffer from accuracy/guidance issues although any reports about the Ukraine conflict are suspect.

 

 

 

Analysis

 

Threat to Carrier Groups – Carrier groups have a multi-layered defense and the furthest layer is long ranged aircraft which serve two purposes:  one, they shoot down bombers before they can launch their missiles and, two, they shoot down the targeting aircraft (Bear recon aircraft) to prevent the acquisition of targeting data.  The attacking aircraft+missile range is irrelevant without targeting data.  This outer layer aerial defense was the exact mission of the F-14 Tomcat.  It is a staggering dereliction of duty on the part of Navy leadership to have allowed the Tomcat to pass without replacement.

 

Beyond targeting, Russian bombers are large and non-stealthy (by today’s standards, at any rate) and cannot be considered penetrating aircraft.  Their ability to penetrate a carrier groups layered defense is nearly non-existent.

 

All things considered the threat to US carrier groups has to be considered very low.

 

Fleet Status – Due to age, maintenance, quality, and personnel issues, the Russian bomber fleet is likely barely able to assemble a handful of flightworthy aircraft at any given moment.  Thus, severely limited numbers, alone, make the bomber fleet a nuisance but not a serious threat.

 

 

 

Summary

 

The Russian bomber fleet is old, obsolete, poorly maintained, suffers from quality issues, and is operated and maintained by poorly trained and ill-equipped personnel.  The vast majority of the fleet is not flightworthy, notwithstanding the occasional publicity stunt of a few aircraft flying a photo op mission.  The days of Russian bomber regiments are over.

 

With the usual caveats, the Ukraine conflict seems to be clearly demonstrating all the worst qualities and characteristics of the Russian system, meaning, poor equipment, poorly maintained equipment, poorly trained personnel, unmotivated personnel, inadequate logistics, and so on.  The ultimate proof that this is true is the fact that Ukraine, a fraction of the size, population, and military of Russia is not only still fighting but may be winning.  That doesn’t happen to Russian forces unless the statements about their problems are true.  You don’t have major ships sunk, apparently without even defending themselves, unless the statements about their systemic problems are true.

 

While the Russian bomber fleet poses little threat to US carrier groups, we still desperately need a very long range air superiority fighter to effectively execute the carrier’s role of escort for the cruise missile shooters.  In short, we need a conceptual, longer ranged, naval F-22.

 

 

 

_______________________________

 

(1)Wiki, “List of active Russian military aircraft”, retrieved 26-Mar-2018,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_military_aircraft

 

27 comments:

  1. Sure the navalized F-22 should be like F-24 Tomcat 2 otherwise no sense to build it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, actually. A navy fighter should NOT be like the Tomcat. The Tomcat was an interceptor of bombers and missiles. It was not an air superiority fighter and was ot optimized for that role although it could certainly attempt that role.

      In a reverse of the Tomcat, we need an air superiority fighter like the F-22 or F-15 that can also fill the interceptor role although it is not optimized for that role.

      Air superiority and interceptor are two distinctly different roles although most people fail to see the difference. Aircraft optimized for the two roles are distinctly different as the F-22/F-15 and Tomcat demonstrate.

      Delete
    2. Hope you'll be interested in this. http://g2mil.com/bm747.htm

      Delete
    3. The Tomcat also was designed as an air superiority fighter. But the first TF-30 engines lack of horsepower to give the F-14 enough thrust-to-weight. In the 1990-s when the F-14 got the engines from F-15, they were the air fighters as the F-15.

      Raptor carries only 8 missiles (6 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders). You said, that the navalized F-22 should have at least 8 missiles up to 12 like AMRAAM. The only reason to succeed this - to build the F-22 bigger than it is.

      His super maneuverability bases on the thrust vectoring canards. Also read this https://www.g2mil.com/canards.html

      Delete
    4. "Combat coordination between subs and surface ships is simply not feasible."

      No, it was not 'also designed as an air superiority fighter'. It was an interceptor, pure and simple. It was not maximized for maneuverability as the air superiority F-15 fighter was. It was not designed for dogfighting as an air superiority fighter would be. It was designed to carry a maximum load of the longest ranged air-to-air weapon the Navy had. It was designed to intercept bombers and missiles. It was a credible, though not outstanding, air-to-air fighter but that was fortuitous, not by design.

      The Tomcat was an interceptor.

      Delete
  2. The Chinese are building modernized H-6s, the H-6N to carry an air launched Df-21 variant, so a FAD-22 is still need.
    H6s are Chinese B-52s

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As you know, the H-6 is a license built Tu-16 Badger which was produced by the Soviets in the 1950s. Ignoring stealth and other issues, the tactical weakness of the H-6, as with the Tu-16, is targeting. Soviet bomber regiments were dependent on Tu-95 Bear recon aircraft to find US carrier groups. The purpose of the F-14 Tomcat was to prevent that. The Chinese lack the very long range targeting capability (as does the US, to be fair). Unfortunately, the US lacks a replacement for the F-14 so we're running a risk that we won't be able to prevent targeting. If that's the case, we'll quickly find out how good Aegis really is.

      Delete
    2. I think the challenge is the CHinese are building H-6 new, their is confusion on how many they have active, and they claim to have a variety of versions, all again claiming to be updated. Tanker, ECM, Recon. Great definition of "good enough."

      Delete
    3. "Great definition of "good enough."

      It is ... and an excellent reminder of that concept! Especially with the US Navy's reduced air wings and short legged aircraft, the H-6 is plenty good enough, IF THEY CAN SOLVE THE TARGETING CHALLENGE.

      A great reminder for the US military to focus less on exquisite and more on 'good enough'.

      Delete
    4. H-6s (Tu-16s) were actually equivalents to the B-47 medium bomber (out of service since 1969), NOT the B-52. The Tu-92 was the equivalent to the B-52 heavy bomber.

      Delete
  3. The threat that the Aegis system was designed to confront?

    Lutefisk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I may be wrong, but I thought aegis was more-so a ballistic missile engagement system that has the ability to engage other air targets within range of its sensors/sensors of other platforms it's communicating with, making it so that for aegis to engage an air target the air target would presumably be close enough to obtain targeting information on the aegis equipped ships and whatever they're escorting.

      Delete
    2. "I may be wrong"

      Pretty much completely ... I say as gently as I can.

      Aegis was developed back in the Cold War to defeat saturation attacks of aircraft or cruise missiles. More recently, it has been given an anti-ballistic missile capability.

      Aegis is an engagement system rather than a surveillance system and has a useful range of out to a couple hundred miles for a large, non-stealthy target. So, yes, if a target is close enough to be detected by Aegis, it may well be close enough to launch missiles, depending on what capabilities it has. However, this is why we use far ranging surveillance aircraft and outer layer interceptors. Their job is to detect and engage aircraft BEFORE they can obtain targeting information. Aegis can link to other assets to see what they see and, possibly, engage.

      You need to come up to speed on the basics of modern naval combat and capabilities.

      Delete
    3. Ah apologies. I suppose I was thinking about what aegis appears to have evolved into rather than how it was originally designed. Also I didn't mean to imply that aegis equipped vessels wouldn't be able to communicate with other assets, I was just thinking that as soon as an aegis vessel opens fire they would become a much easier target to acquire (although probably not much easier for the plane currently being evaporated by whatever weapons set to target it).

      Delete
  4. Interesting how things have atrophied...
    I still remember the Clancy stories (among others) of the next Battle of the Atlantic, and how we were confident, yet wary of these threats...
    We'd do well to look back at our seriousness in the 70s and 80s...!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising", the battle between the bombers and the escorts seemed so mathematical.

      X number of bombers with X times 2 number of missiles inbound.

      Y number of Standard missiles fired, with Y times hit % knocking out the inbounds.

      The remaining inbound missiles to be accounted for by the CIWS on the targeted ship.

      All very logical, all very controlled, all very calculable.

      But I think the modern reality is going to be a bit different.

      Short identification ranges and resulting short engagement times. Undetected inbounds. Stealth, jamming, chaos, locusts, cats and dogs living together.

      I believe that it will be much messier, chaotic, and uncontrollable.

      Lutefisk

      Delete
    2. " seemed so mathematical"
      "All very logical, all very controlled, all very calculable."
      "I believe that it will be much messier, chaotic, and uncontrollable."

      The author's writing style aside, consider what the situation was during that time period. Aegis was matched against large, slow, high aircraft - the perfect scenario for Aegis. The enemy could be spotted at nearly the maximum range for Aegis radar and engagements could take full advantage of the layered defense concept. In addition, the outer layer of Tomcats had maximum distance from the carrier and possessed a truly formidable, long range radar of their own, the AWG-9. It was like having dozens of mini-E-2 Hawkeyes way out in front of the carrier. In this scenario, the defender could, indeed, take repeated, on-going 'shots' at the attacking enemy and slowly whittle down their numbers, hopefully before they could reach a launch point.

      Today, we lack the long-legged outer patrol fighters with formidable radars. The enemy now uses supersonic aircraft and missiles. Missiles use sea-skimming approaches. Detection will be difficult and engagements will be limited due to the enemy's speed.

      The result IS logical and calculable. I've done described EXACTY what an attack will be like and what we should be doing about it. The Navy simply refuses to address the challenge logically and realistically.

      I've described carrier group size and operations, the need for a true, long ranged, air superiority fighter, the required escort numbers and arrangement, the need for MANY MORE close in weapons, the need for much better electronic warfare capabilities, the need to integrate EW into Aegis, the desperate need for a radar optimized for horizon-in engagements, etc. Heck, I did a second-by-second analysis of an enemy missile attack, if you'll recall ! All of this is quite mathematical and logical but the Navy would rather produce worthless LCS and Zumwalts instead.

      "I believe that it will be much messier, chaotic, and uncontrollable."

      With the utmost respect for Clancy, whose writing I love, his style did not capture reality. WWII air/kamikaze attacks were messy, chaotic affairs. Cold War attacks would have been no different and future attacks will be the same. Chaos and battle will never be separated! You just have to understand it and learn to deal with it. The Navy simply opts not to despite my telling them exactly what to do.

      Delete
  5. Now you are doing it!
    For starters, 'range' is a nearly meaningless figure as it is a ONE-WAY value. Radius is an out and back figure and is what's important though it depends on a host of factors and is, therefore, almost as meaningless. :)))

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aside from quoting a famous writer, do you have a larger point to make?

      Delete
    2. Nope. Just having a bit of fun. I am though reading through your suggested articles which have and are being v informative. Many thanks for taking the time to point them out to me. Much appreciated.
      Although it is worth pointing out that the TU95 still regularly fly routes around N Norway and down the Iceland/uk gap and on down the west coast of the uk and Ireland. If nothing else it shows that some are kept maintained and fully airworthy.

      Delete
  6. In view of the numerous shortcomings of the X-22 family of missiles, in the late 1980s, work began on a deep modernization of this missile and the improvement of the X-22 continued almost until the end of the Cold War. The active seeker was supplemented with an inertial navigation system (INS), which made it possible to launch a rocket into the area where the enemy's AUG was located, and most of the way to the target, the rocket flew "autonomously" and only in the final phase of the flight was the GOS turned on, the search for the target and the aiming at it. Such innovations have significantly increased the likelihood of hitting an enemy aircraft carrier in the event of intense electronic countermeasures.
    In addition it was reported that the missile had a high degree of survivability in front of air defense systems. According to calculations, one Kh-22 with constructive protection withstood the burst of the 20-mm Vulcan-Phalanx anti-aircraft artillery system, the hit of one AIM-7 Sparrow missile or two or three AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles. Source Global security.

    ReplyDelete
  7. There has been some prior consideration of a longer range variant of the F-22 as a fighter/bomber. It would make a good starting point for a naval air superiority fighter.
    FB-22
    FB-22

    The FB-22 design was not a true air superiority fighter design since it was only rated for 6 G and lost the thrust vectoring of the F-22. The proposed design had increased range vs the F-22. It was intended as a small supersonic bomber similar to the strike eagle.

    Keep the thrust vectoring and a 9G rating for the airframe and it would be better than anything currently at sea.

    MLW

    ReplyDelete
  8. We've seen the proposals for the upgraded Tomcat and a navalized F-22. What about a slimmed down and simplified F-35C that adds internal guns and increases its dogfighting capability?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The air wing needs a very long range air superiority fighter. The F-35C is not long ranged nor heavily armed. In other words, it's unsuited for the role. How will making it 'slimmed down and simplified' better fit it to the role?

      Delete
    2. My off the cuff suggestions would be:
      1. Cut a lot of the fancy cockpit stuff to invest in a more powerful engine.
      2. Load it with small missiles like the Raytheon Peregrine that have plenty of range in a degraded electronic environment.
      3. Develop an equivalent of conformal fuel tanks for the wing pylons that preserve some stealth and get dumped close to the patrol zone.

      Delete
    3. What would be an example of 'fancy cockpit stuff' that you'd suggest removing that would not impair its air-to-air capability and would save enough money to significantly improve the engine development?

      Delete
    4. With software that complex it is never done needs constant work. So just trimming what you expect from the software (ditching the crazy sensor fusion stuff to more classic readouts) will lower costs and increase reliability.

      https://thehill.com/policy/defense/549490-f35-cockpit-upgrade-has-444-million-overrun/

      And it looks like there is already some plan to get more thrust in later blocks.
      https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/sensors-electronic-warfare/weekly-debrief-f-35-program-sneaks-major-radar-upgrade

      I agree that the Navy needs an air superiority fighter. And that it shouldn't take decades to design one. But if you are going to buy a lot of F-35s, getting stealthy fuel tanks, doing the upgrades that allow 6 AIM-120s or 12 smaller Peregrine-type missiles, and getting better incremental thrust would at least make those planes more valuable.

      Delete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.