Russia’s Backfire Bomber Is Back!

War is Boring ^ | June 13, 2014 | Thomas Newdick

[sukhoi-30mki]

[GreyFriar]

Soviet Backfire’s are back, rested, revamped, and ready.

[tcrlaf]

There was an article just last week that Putin had personally reviewed the first of the upgraded TU-22M’s.

They have been spending big money to upgrade capabilities in the last ten years, and those efforts are just now beginning to role off the lines.

[Travis McGee]

Long ago in the 1980s I was at a major joint CPX at Fort Bragg. My roommate was an AF officer who was “playing” Soviet Naval Aviation. The battle space was the Indian Ocean and Middle East. According to this USAF officer, he kept sinking our aircraft carriers by launching giant supersonic anti-ship missiles from “his” Backfires, beyond the defensive range of our carriers.

So naturally, the moderators in charge of the CPX had to constantly change the ROE and redefine the stated capabilities of the Backfires, their anti-ship missiles, and the defensive capabilities of the carriers.

But according to this USAF officer, the CPX began with the known capabilities of all sides, and “his” Backfires kept sinking “our” CVNs.

I understand that the Russian anti-ship missiles are a lot better today.

[Travis McGee]

See #4.

[NFHale]

Big mutha, ain’t it....

[logi_cal869]

They’ve been back for awhile, but always a pleasure to read about. Thanks for the post.

It’s a wonder the Russians didn’t reinstall the refueling probes by now...

[Gen.Blather]

“So naturally, the moderators in charge of the CPX had to constantly change the ROE and redefine the stated capabilities of the Backfires, their anti-ship missiles, and the defensive capabilities of the carriers.”

I’ve known several submarine navy officers and enlisted who claimed they regularly sank carriers in exercises and those sinking’s were later rescored as damaged or no hits. What is the point of exercises if we don’t learn from them? Or, is it that carriers are so vulnerable that they can’t be defended? Frankly, I’d like these exercises scored by people who don’t have skin in the carrier game. The thought of potentially losing five thousand men at a clip should keep somebody awake nights!

[mountn man]

Looks sorta like an A-5.

Is this one of Russia's tribute planes, or their own design?

[baddog 219]

It’s Okay... Obama has magic unicorns and pixie dust.....
Russia may have the backfire, but we now have the backdoor.
It sneaks up on a plane and attacks it’s behind...

[razorback-bert]

Last night, I was looking at a Russian-English web site and it worried me. Russia is upgrading all its’ weapons systems and training with them. Russians are proud of their military now and aren’t making jokes about them, like I saw a few years ago on the site.

http://englishrussia.com/2011/05/25/7-abandoned-wonders-of-the-ussr/

Compare the latest photos and posts with older ones.

[Little Pig]

This one's pretty much all Russia. It's HUGE. That cockpit is a 4-seater (pilot, copilot, navigator and weapons); the pilot and co-pilot sit side by side. This image below is a painting, but it gives a good sense of the scale of this thing:

[Robert A Cook PE]

So, do you think the Russians (Putin) would “quickly” add back in those refueling probes?

I doubt they ever pulled the internal piping out ...

And, if they did add in the probes, would Obama notice? Care?

[AppyPappy]

B1-ski

[Hulka]

I have been in many exercises where A-10s destroyed entire US Army Battalions. And as a result, the US Army adjusted assessment protocols.

Thing is, simulations are just that—simulations. They are not real-world. They are only as accurate as the modeling and programming allows, and for the longest time we had no real-world experience upon which to program (80’s for example), therefore results were heavily skewed.

After initial simulation runs, programming is adjusted using human factors analyses (a dose of ‘get real, common-sense’ thought) to to get a realistic assessment that reflected the best balance between real-world knowledge and experience with simulation programming. But what if you have no relevant and/or recent real-world data? We assume worst case.

Programming is based on a superhuman capable enemy. See modeling and simulation results before Gulf War I. In that simulation the Iraqi Air Force with “top” russian aircraft and SAMs kicked butt—simulation said 80 US aircraft would be downed (we lost 14), and simulation said we would have up to 30,000 US KIAs (we have 113).

These simulation numbers and stats showing spectacular Iraqi results were just that, simulations.

[Jumper]

Was at Bragg too, as an Airborne Infantryman.... We always knew we would die fighting Soviet Armored or Mech Regiments, have no relief, and be subjected to Nuclear attack if the Soviets did break through; no win for us on the ground every case but we always accepted the challenges.

That was then, when the world was gripped by the threat of an all-out-war with winner take all in Europe or the Middle East.

Today, the electronic counter measures can move a ship 30-miles on radar from where it actually is sitting. If war with Russia were to break out, it would not be pretty - but trading a few American Cities and keeping the Corn Fields will sure change the political alignment of the Nation!

[Gen.Blather]

“These simulation numbers and stats showing spectacular Iraqi results were just that, simulations.”

I appreciate your response. I remember reading the (public) simulation reports on Iraq 1. I suspect that Saddam had frightened his generals into hunkering down and just trying to personally survive. I understand that Saddam, a man with no military experience, took personal control. I suspect that if the Iraqi’s had a single Rommel in command of significant forces the results might have been the same but the body and machine count would most likely have been higher. If I recall, the team who played the Iraqi’s used far better tactics than Saddam.

I’ve run military equipment tests in private industry and had a manager put his thumb so heavily on the scales for a particular result that I suspect all simulations and tests. One boss said, “Failure is just not an option. Make it pass.” I listen to the navy guys complain about their admiral and I suspect the same sort of thing.

[Lower Deck]

If memory serves there is an overhead instrument cluster in the Backfire cockpit known to its crews as the Carlucci Panel because when he toured the airplane Reagan Secretary of Defence Frank Carlucci kept banging his head on it.

[wetphoenix]

That’s how an average Russian SAC AFB and Backfires look nowadays:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Tkq0v5t2BTs

Circa 1993 Russian Democrat government has seized military spending to virtually zero and relocated most of the budget on welfare and social programs to counter Communist agitation.

AF personnel wasn’t paid or even fed in months.

In about a year most of these bases were left to rot unattended with all the planes and ground equipment intact.

You could just drive a truck in and remove an engine from a jet or strip control room of electronic equipment.

I guess it is Obama’s plan for USAF.

BTW, these abandoned places were a playground for Chicoms to learn technology.

[MSF BU]

Five thousand men and WOMEN. The Romney and Sununu boys don’t want to participate so the gals are now aboard combatant vessels. Bull Halsey would be rolling in his grave.