That web page has not been updated in nearly eight years and that source does not say anything about the Tu-95K-22 having been returned to service, now stop posting until you know what you are talking about.:rolleyes:

The really amusing thing is that of the sources FAS uses on that page only the link to the book I am using as a source is still active!

Whoops, not that source, it was another. I’ll see if I can find it, though it didn’t really say there were more than several in possible service condition. And like I said, I never claimed they were in active service, I’d love you to quote me on that, but I did say it’s possible there would be a bunch of them around still, likely at Engels at the decom facility.

Define ‘in service’…

I wouldn’t be surprised if a Tu-22M consumed more fuel per hour than a B-1B – and may need just as many man-hours of servicing/repair per flying hour as the ‘Bone’. The USAF can barely afford to keep 60+ B-1Bs in service and your telling me that the Russian Federation, which has less than 10% the defence budget of the USA, has 150 BACKFIREs in service!:rolleyes:

Yes, and the USSR had a total of nearly 500 Backfires built of all variants, including prototypes.

Upto 268 Backfire C’s were built, and were in production till 1993, with low flying hours during the 90s up until when the economy picked up in 2000 – 2001. Nowadays they are running so many training exercises it’s not even funny. So their preparation is becoming good, even for young pilots. If you spoke Russian it would be worth it to watch the Russian videos about the strategic aviation on Youtube for you.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Backfire.html

Essentially, about 168 according to most sources are in service with both the air force and naval aviation, and 90 in reserve.

And I don’t give a damn about how the US can barely keep its 60 B-1s in service, they must cost more to maintain, plus they have so much other crap to pay for, its really irrelevant as a point. :rolleyes:

And Russia is far from America in terms of fuel prices. 😎

Not being an expert on this topic I was wondering if I might join the fight. I agree that the TU-22M is probably the most potent threat to a CBG, especially if equipped with supersonic ASMs. But it would only be so as either part of a co-ordinated attack with SSNs and SSGNs. The Russian Surface units would have a hard time getting close enough to a CBG. Also the USN is not going to sail a CBG close to the shore before it has dealt with immediate blue water threats.

I understand it is a piece of wishfully fiction, but the initial soviet attack on USN CBG in “Red Storm Rising” gives an idea of how it could have been done.

But how many TU-22Ms does Russia have, and out of those how many are serviceable? Can other Russian aircraft reach out into the Atlantic/Pacific and how many of these are available. Could any of these sortie totally undetected, together with the required tankers etc.

IF you give command of a CBG to a total idiot and order hin to sail near the coast at DEFCOM 5 yes Russia would be able to take it out in all probability but that simply isn’t going to happen (Watch this space). If the Iranians sortied their SS into the gulf, It would cause the USN to pull back until they were located and given a real close escort.

Even todays reduced strength CBG is formidable, with little or very few real threats. Looking at what the UKs future CBG may comprise of (1x T-45, 1x FFG, 1 x SSN), I would be a very worried sailor if I was on one in a medium to high threat environment.

As mentioned before, 150+ Tu-22M3 in service with 90 or so in reserve.

Armed with either Kh-22M, Kh-15 anti-ship variants, or maybe even the rumored Kh-32.

http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jsws/jswsa034.html

You also can’t rule out the use of the larger number of Su-24Ms in the inventory.

The relevant sources from that section dealing with ALCMs are from no earlier than 2000, when everyone was busy speculating about the thing (note that they use the word “probably”, inferring that they aren’t even 100% sure either). The BOAS article from 2007 doesn’t mention the guidance system, I downloaded it from here:

http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/0096-3402/?Article+Category=Nuclear+Notebook&sortorder=asc&v=expanded&o=0

I also did a query of Russian-language news sources from the past few years and the ones I read through didn’t mention the guidance system used specifically. A lot of them were sure that some sort of precision-level guidance had to be used in the conventional version to achieve the quoted CEP of 6 meters, but that’s as far as they went in the open press. I think it would be safe to say that we can speculate about TV guidance for the terminal phase, but that nobody knows for sure, despite what Globalsecurity, FAS, BOAS, NTI, and the like are reporting. I do like the Russian allegation of precision guidance for the conventional weapon, as it does make sense for the nuclear armed version to not require that level of precision.

It wouldn’t be a surprise if they could essentially use the missile like a Kh-59M, except with an extreme range. I’m sure the Russians could communicate between the seeker / launch platform through satellite or some other form or radio link. Which would then mean they could re-designate targets in the terminal phase quite easily.

“Lamewad”? Is that a new word on the playground?

It’s sealord’s new nickname 🙂 – feels the most appropriate of the -wad combinations 😉

Which is precisely why Wikipedia is pretty much useless as a serious, credible source.

As is every other military source online, Jane’s included. What is published doesn’t necessarily have to be accurate or even completely true.

I completely agree, F-117 (still no parallel), Aegis (also no parallel), and AIM-120 (3 years before R-77, although both are post Cold War weapons), are just a few more of the NATO advantages over WP. The Soviet Defence industry literally bankrupted the Soviet Union, as they had to react to such western events as the Reagan Plan of the early 1980’s, which outdated a generation of Soviet Weaponry. Yes the Soviets may have had a large armaments industry, but the cold reality is that it’s economy could not sustain such spending, so even if the Soviet Union had not fallen, it would have been a result of spending cutbacks in the defence industry, further widening the technological rift between NATO and WP. Despite this though, the Soviet army was one of the 2 largest armies in the world (China being the other), and even though they did have certain technological shortfalls, as the Russian saying goes, quantity has a quality all in it’s own.

Riiight..

Tu-22M3 – no parallel
SS-N-12/19 – no parallels
SS-N-22/26 – no parallels
Kirov Battlecruiser – no parallels
S-300/400 – no parallels
Oscar II Class sub – no parallels
SS-18 ICBM – no parallels

And yeah, the F-117 has no parallels, yet one got shot down by people who has an SA-3! Pretty terrible if you ask me.

And the Aegis, grand and all, seems to be great for shooting down civilian airliners – or making Standards miss their targets. . . but hey – maybe those were flukes. . .

there’s probably more…

I can also guarantee you, that in 15 years the Russian armed forces will be expanding not only in numbers, but more into quality weaponry, more than enough to deter anyone both conventionally and in terms of nuclear weapons also. But the more worrisome prospect for any die hard US or British patriot – will be China. With over 1.6 billion people and an economy growing as fast as it is, I’d be far more worried about what the Chinese will do in the next 20 – 30 years.