A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Backfire bombers: Reach USA ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 27th 03, 03:07 AM
Mike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 27th 03, 03:46 AM
Thomas Schoene
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old July 27th 03, 05:12 AM
Ragnar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old July 27th 03, 10:16 AM
David Bromage
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old July 27th 03, 12:52 PM
Thomas Schoene
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old July 27th 03, 02:40 PM
Brian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old July 27th 03, 06:02 PM
Darrell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old July 28th 03, 01:48 AM
Thomas Schoene
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old July 28th 03, 02:18 AM
Howard Berkowitz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old July 28th 03, 02:32 AM
David Bromage
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.