If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Backfire bombers: Reach USA ?
There was some cold war era movie that starred Rock Hudson as the
President about 25 years ago. I can't remember the name, but I think it might have been called World War 3. There was one scene in the movie where they talked about how as tensions had risen, the Soviets had sent their Backfire bombers over Seattle as a show of force. But weren't Backfire Bombers later found to have never been anything more than a medium-range bomber ? Was the movie realistic in having Backfire bombers being sent to the continental USA ? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike" wrote in message
om Was the movie realistic in having Backfire bombers being sent to the continental USA ? Probably not. Tu-95 Bears or Tu-160 Blackjacks would have been better for such missions. However, one wartime profile that concerned the United States in the 1980s would have had Backfires flying a one-way mission from Siberian bases across the US and recovering in Cuba (or whatever was left of it). Check out http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-22m.htm The sketch of operational range is interesting, but it's not clear what it represents. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/range.gif -- Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike" wrote in message om... Was the movie realistic in having Backfire bombers being sent to the continental USA ? Sure. But getting them back to the USSR might have been a problem. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Mike wrote:
There was some cold war era movie that starred Rock Hudson as the President about 25 years ago. I can't remember the name, but I think it might have been called World War 3. 1982 telemovie, also starring David Soul and Brian Keith. Fairly typical brinksmanship drama which IIRC included a Soviet invasion of Alaska. Or was it just a special forces attack? I definately remember scenes of small arms fire around the pipeline. There was one scene in the movie where they talked about how as tensions had risen, the Soviets had sent their Backfire bombers over Seattle as a show of force. But weren't Backfire Bombers later found to have never been anything more than a medium-range bombe? The actual range of the Backfire was (and still is) hotly debated, as is whether they were capable of being refuelled in flight. Officially they didn't have refuelling probes, but some sources say these could be screwed in at short notice and the refuelled range was said to be comparable to the Bison. While the Soviets claimed that they did not have intercontinental range, this was a moot point. If carrying the Kh-55SM they only needed to get within 1300nm of their targets. That puts almost any fixed target in the western USA within range of an unrefuelled Backfire. If it was just a show of force, a Backfire with extra tanks in the bomb bay could probably get from Anadyr or Mys-Schmidta to Seattle and back. Cheers David |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"David Bromage" wrote in message
Mike wrote: There was some cold war era movie that starred Rock Hudson as the President about 25 years ago. I can't remember the name, but I think it might have been called World War 3. 1982 telemovie, also starring David Soul and Brian Keith. Fairly typical brinksmanship drama which IIRC included a Soviet invasion of Alaska. Or was it just a special forces attack? I definately remember scenes of small arms fire around the pipeline. There was one scene in the movie where they talked about how as tensions had risen, the Soviets had sent their Backfire bombers over Seattle as a show of force. But weren't Backfire Bombers later found to have never been anything more than a medium-range bombe? The actual range of the Backfire was (and still is) hotly debated, as is whether they were capable of being refuelled in flight. Officially they didn't have refuelling probes, but some sources say these could be screwed in at short notice and the refuelled range was said to be comparable to the Bison. Just to clarify this bit, early Backfires had a very visible refuelling probe. It was removed under SALT II, but there is some debate about whther it could be reinstalled quickly or not. I'm not sure this is a valid a concern; if you heven't flown a proble and drogue refuelling, the last place you want to learn is in the middle of an operational strategic bombing mission. While the Soviets claimed that they did not have intercontinental range, this was a moot point. If carrying the Kh-55SM they only needed to get within 1300nm of their targets. That puts almost any fixed target in the western USA within range of an unrefuelled Backfire. Does the Backfire even carry AS-15/Kh-55? I believe that missile is limited to the Tu-169 and Tu-95. Most sources credit the Tu-22M3 with AS-16/Kh-15P, a SRAM-equivalent short-range nuclear missile, but not the longer-range cruise missile. -- Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"David Bromage" wrote in message .. . While the Soviets claimed that they did not have intercontinental range, this was a moot point. If carrying the Kh-55SM they only needed to get within 1300nm of their targets. That puts almost any fixed target in the western USA within range of an unrefuelled Backfire. Unfortunately the US Navy might have something to say about that. SM-2's would eat Backfires. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Mike wrote:
There was some cold war era movie that starred Rock Hudson as the President about 25 years ago. I can't remember the name, but I think it might have been called World War 3. There was one scene in the movie where they talked about how as tensions had risen, the Soviets had sent their Backfire bombers over Seattle as a show of force. But weren't Backfire Bombers later found to have never been anything more than a medium-range bomber ? Was the movie realistic in having Backfire bombers being sent to the continental USA ? With air refueling it can go anywhere. -- Darrell R. Schmidt B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Brian" wrote in message
"David Bromage" wrote in message .. . While the Soviets claimed that they did not have intercontinental range, this was a moot point. If carrying the Kh-55SM they only needed to get within 1300nm of their targets. That puts almost any fixed target in the western USA within range of an unrefuelled Backfire. Unfortunately the US Navy might have something to say about that. SM-2's would eat Backfires. The US Navy would hardly be in a position to intecept bombers flying the minimum distance path from Russia to the US, since it's mostly over permanent ice pack. -- Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
In article t,
"Thomas Schoene" wrote: "Brian" wrote in message "David Bromage" wrote in message .. . While the Soviets claimed that they did not have intercontinental range, this was a moot point. If carrying the Kh-55SM they only needed to get within 1300nm of their targets. That puts almost any fixed target in the western USA within range of an unrefuelled Backfire. Unfortunately the US Navy might have something to say about that. SM-2's would eat Backfires. The US Navy would hardly be in a position to intecept bombers flying the minimum distance path from Russia to the US, since it's mostly over permanent ice pack. Are you forgetting the nuclear battleship icebreaker with AEGIS and 20" AA guns? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Schoene wrote:
Just to clarify this bit, early Backfires had a very visible refuelling probe. It was removed under SALT II, but there is some debate about whther it could be reinstalled quickly or not. I'm not sure this is a valid a concern; if you heven't flown a proble and drogue refuelling, the last place you want to learn is in the middle of an operational strategic bombing mission. One of the defectors in the early 80s claimed that each of the Backfire bases had probes and they trained with them at night. However this could be like most of the Iraqi defectors, claiming more than they actually knew and trying to inflate their own importance. Does the Backfire even carry AS-15/Kh-55? I believe that missile is limited to the Tu-169 and Tu-95. Most sources credit the Tu-22M3 with AS-16/Kh-15P, a SRAM-equivalent short-range nuclear missile, but not the longer-range cruise missile. You're probably right. Soviet Military Power (DoD 1983) said that the then new ALCM would be "carried by the Backfire, the Blackjack, and possibly the Bear". But then DIA also estimated the Backfire had an unrefuelled range of 2700nm. Cheers David |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
water bombers | Stew Hicks | Home Built | 2 | September 8th 03 11:55 PM |
water bombers | Stew Hicks | Home Built | 0 | September 7th 03 04:27 PM |
F-111 bombers flying from carriers ? | Mike | Military Aviation | 38 | August 7th 03 12:19 AM |
Nazi bombers found under East Berlin airport | Nick | Military Aviation | 9 | July 29th 03 08:50 AM |
V engined bombers (was: #1 Piston Fighter was British) | John Keeney | Military Aviation | 0 | July 1st 03 06:06 AM |