China to acquire Backfires?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ina/tu-22m.htm

Two part question; first, do you think that China will actually succeed in
it's acquisition attempts regarding the Backfire, and if so, how many would
they end up with?

Second, what does this mean to the the US? Backfires are a viable threat to
the carrier group, and with the F-14/Phoenix weapons systems getting phased
out with no real comparable replacement, I can't help but think that the US
carrier groups may find themselves in an uncomfortably vulnerable position
sometime in the near future. The F-14 and Phoenix missile were designed
specifically to counter the long range bomber threat, and when this threat
was thought to have disappeared, the AAAM (Phoenix replacement) and the
Super-Tomcat upgrades were cancelled.

Although there is basically no chance for the F-14 to be brought back to
life, should we now possibly be concerned with developing a new long-range
missile system for the F-18 and JSF, or do these aircraft already have the
capability to defeat the long-range bomber using stealth and smaller, medium
range weapons?

your right about the Tomcat---can't understand what they were thinking-but
as I have said before---if that can keep alomst 50 year old B-52's
flying --they can certainly do it for the Tomcat.......



"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message
.. .
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ina/tu-22m.htm

Two part question; first, do you think that China will actually succeed in
it's acquisition attempts regarding the Backfire, and if so, how many
would
they end up with?

Second, what does this mean to the the US? Backfires are a viable threat
to
the carrier group, and with the F-14/Phoenix weapons systems getting
phased
out with no real comparable replacement, I can't help but think that the
US
carrier groups may find themselves in an uncomfortably vulnerable position
sometime in the near future. The F-14 and Phoenix missile were designed
specifically to counter the long range bomber threat, and when this threat
was thought to have disappeared, the AAAM (Phoenix replacement) and the
Super-Tomcat upgrades were cancelled.

Although there is basically no chance for the F-14 to be brought back to
life, should we now possibly be concerned with developing a new long-range
missile system for the F-18 and JSF, or do these aircraft already have the
capability to defeat the long-range bomber using stealth and smaller,
medium
range weapons?

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 18:02:07 GMT, "Thomas J. Paladino Jr."
wrote:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ina/tu-22m.htm

Two part question; first, do you think that China will actually succeed in
it's acquisition attempts regarding the Backfire, and if so, how many would
they end up with?

Second, what does this mean to the the US? Backfires are a viable threat to
the carrier group, and with the F-14/Phoenix weapons systems getting phased
out with no real comparable replacement, I can't help but think that the US
carrier groups may find themselves in an uncomfortably vulnerable position
sometime in the near future. The F-14 and Phoenix missile were designed
specifically to counter the long range bomber threat, and when this threat
was thought to have disappeared, the AAAM (Phoenix replacement) and the
Super-Tomcat upgrades were cancelled.

Although there is basically no chance for the F-14 to be brought back to
life, should we now possibly be concerned with developing a new long-range
missile system for the F-18 and JSF, or do these aircraft already have the
capability to defeat the long-range bomber using stealth and smaller, medium
range weapons?

The AMRAAM has a pretty good range - most of the extremely long range
shots taken by the Phoenix were test runs unlikely to be repeated in
real life.

And with the improvements in stealthy ships, the steady improvement in
SM-2, and the far superior last ditch defenses (compared to
pre-Phalanx days when Phoenix was first deployed) of Phalanx, RAM, and
ESSM, the USN shouldn't be too concenred until China actually looks
like gettign *dozens* of Tu-22Ms.

If the worst comes to the worst, the US can always buy Meteor ;-)

Peter Kemp

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 18:02:07 GMT, Thomas J. Paladino Jr. wrote:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ina/tu-22m.htm

Two part question; first, do you think that China will actually succeed in
it's acquisition attempts regarding the Backfire, and if so, how many would
they end up with?

I guess they'd be expecting to buy about 10-30. If not, they could
always use a Flanker derivative as a long-range bomber.

Second, what does this mean to the the US? Backfires are a viable threat to
the carrier group, and with the F-14/Phoenix weapons systems getting phased
out with no real comparable replacement,

They could always use the Meteor, if NIH considerations don't
prevent that.

Although there is basically no chance for the F-14 to be brought back to
life, should we now possibly be concerned with developing a new long-range
missile system for the F-18 and JSF, or do these aircraft already have the
capability to defeat the long-range bomber using stealth and smaller, medium
range weapons?

A long range missile makes more sense for the F/A-18 than for the
F-35, because it will be big. This isn't an issue with the F/A-18,
becasue that carries weapons externally. But the F-35 uses an
internal weapons bay, for stealthing; giving it external missiles
would remove its stealth and make it more vulnerable. It may be that
lack of stealth isn't a problem for some missions the F-35 may have
to perform, but it think we can expect that a long-range missile
isn't going to be a routine part of its armament (as it probably
will for the European delta-canard fighters).

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

In message , Thomas J.
Paladino Jr. writes
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ina/tu-22m.htm

Two part question; first, do you think that China will actually succeed in
it's acquisition attempts regarding the Backfire, and if so, how many would
they end up with?

Say rather, "How many could they support"?

Second, what does this mean to the the US? Backfires are a viable threat to
the carrier group,

Only in sufficient numbers and with good targeting.

and with the F-14/Phoenix weapons systems getting phased
out with no real comparable replacement, I can't help but think that the US
carrier groups may find themselves in an uncomfortably vulnerable position
sometime in the near future.

The USSR policy was to send several regiments of Backfires against a
located US CVBG and try to overwhelm it. AEGIS was the answer and
remains in US service.

The F-14 and Phoenix missile were designed
specifically to counter the long range bomber threat, and when this threat
was thought to have disappeared, the AAAM (Phoenix replacement) and the
Super-Tomcat upgrades were cancelled.

As others have said, if you need a long-range AAM then buy into Meteor.
The F-18 can carry a decent number of them, and the E-2 can detect
Backfires at long range, and the AEGIS/SM-2 remains the best shipborne
AAW in the world. (Type 45 may be better but is yet to appear, and then
AEGIS will get an update...)

Although there is basically no chance for the F-14 to be brought back to
life, should we now possibly be concerned with developing a new long-range
missile system for the F-18 and JSF, or do these aircraft already have the
capability to defeat the long-range bomber using stealth and smaller, medium
range weapons?

The enemy has to reliably locate the US carrier.

The enemy has to get that data back to HQ.

The strike must be authorised.

The strikers must take off, form up, and get into launch range without
being disrupted by anything from comms jamming to fighter attack.

The missiles must reliably tell chaff, floating decoys and offboard
jammers from real ships: then tell real escorts from real HVUs: then
survive the hardkill defences: then defeat the softkill: and finally
inflict mission-lethal damage on the carrier.

This is not an easy chain to follow, and if any link breaks the whole
thing falls down.


If China bought MiG-23s would you panic? The Backfire and its weapons
are of the same vintage. The fundamental problem remains that you can
only mass a strike against a known target.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

From: "rstro"
Date: 8/21/2004 2:09 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

your right about the Tomcat---can't understand what they were thinking-but
as I have said before---if that can keep alomst 50 year old B-52's
flying --they can certainly do it for the Tomcat.......


F-14s age much faster due to higher stress loads. For one thing B-52s don't do
cat shots and wire landings. If B-52s had to do the yanking and banking F-14s
do they'd age much faster too.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

your right about the Tomcat---can't understand what they were thinking-but
as I have said before---if that can keep alomst 50 year old B-52's
flying --they can certainly do it for the Tomcat.......


Different animals, different life expectances. The Buff, for all its
longevity, doesn't do its craft at 7-10G on a typical day. It also isn't
subjected to routine impacts with steel objects, or to months of salt water
mist at a time. If you want something to last fifty years AND compete as a
front line tactical aircraft, don't land it on a carrier. Two out of three
ain't bad.

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

The USSR policy was to send several regiments of Backfires against a
located US CVBG and try to overwhelm it.

Having seen that scenario played out in 1:1 scale, I would report that the
event would be, if nothing else, glorious. Being pelted in the chest by sonic
booms from Soviet supersonic bombers while chaff banged and glittered was one
of the more interesting moments I've had. Back in the US at a war college, we
wargamed it to no end - which just plain never showed what 48 Backfires, a
couple dozen Tu 22s, 16s, SSNs and SSM-armed patrol boats could really do.

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

In article ,
nt (Krztalizer) wrote:


The USSR policy was to send several regiments of Backfires against a
located US CVBG and try to overwhelm it.

Having seen that scenario played out in 1:1 scale, I would report that the
event would be, if nothing else, glorious. Being pelted in the chest by sonic
booms from Soviet supersonic bombers while chaff banged and glittered was one
of the more interesting moments I've had. Back in the US at a war college, we
wargamed it to no end - which just plain never showed what 48 Backfires, a
couple dozen Tu 22s, 16s, SSNs and SSM-armed patrol boats could really do.


Didn't we all know what the outcome would be and just thanked God it
didn't seem likely to happen? From the SSN standpoint alone, a squadron
of six ASW helos (of which 1-2 were always being worked on in the hangar
deck) was not going to be enough to counter a Soviet SSN tour de force
against Mother. I think we both know how useless the VS assets always
seemed to be at real inner-zone ASW, but even if you throw in a bone for
them, we all pretty much agreed we wouldn't have a place to land if the
real **** happened. Of course, I'm sure you'll agree we knew us AW's
would make damn sure a lot of VMF (Voyenno Morskoj Flot) sailors went to
ocean floor in the process.



--Mike

Didn't we all know what the outcome would be and just thanked God it
didn't seem likely to happen?

The CW from the mid-80s was that we would *eventually* win the sea battles,
after the Soviets melted a few of our HVUs down to slag.

From the SSN standpoint alone, a squadron
of six ASW helos (of which 1-2 were always being worked on in the hangar
deck) was not going to be enough to counter a Soviet SSN tour de force
against Mother. I think we both know how useless the VS assets always
seemed to be at real inner-zone ASW, but even if you throw in a bone for
them, we all pretty much agreed we wouldn't have a place to land if the
real **** happened.

My VS duty was with VS-31 on Ike - we re-made our squadron patch in 1981 to
reflect the fact that we had gone one entire year without submarine contact.
It was one of the real reasons that I went into helicopters; the other main
reason was that the VS AWs were just plain snobs - something I have never heard
anyone say about us "knuckledragging SAR swimmer" AWHs. Its hard to be full of
yourself when you are ****ing in your wetsuit to keep from freezing.

Of course, I'm sure you'll agree we knew us AW's
would make damn sure a lot of VMF (Voyenno Morskoj Flot) sailors went to
ocean floor in the process.

Like I said, it would have been glorious -- at least for a little while )

Later, Mike.

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.