PDA

View Full Version : BMD Focus: Tu-160s tilt nuclear balance



Afro-European
09-25-2008, 07:19 AM
by Martin Sieff
Washington (UPI) Sep 24, 2008
Russia's supersonic nuclear bombers flew home across the arctic from Venezuela last week. But in their eight-day visit, they lastingly transformed the strategic nuclear balance of power in the Western Hemisphere.

The two Tupolev Tu-160 White Swans -- NATO designation Blackjack -- flew home last Thursday on their marathon 15-hour flight back to their home base at Engels in the southern Saratov region of Russia. But during their stay in Venezuela, where their crews were lavishly hosted by fiercely anti-American President Hugo Chavez, they carried out some highly significant strategic exercises and established sobering precedents for the future.
"The aircraft ... have successfully carried out a patrol mission along the South American coast," Russian air force spokesman Lt. Col. Vladimir Drik said, according to RIA Novosti.
For the Tu-160 Blackjack is the most advanced and formidable nuclear bomber in the world. Its variable-geometry, or swing, wings give it a combination of unparalleled range and endurance in the air with the capability of bursts of flight at Mach 2, or 1,380 miles per hour at sea level. And it can carry stand-off, nuclear-capable X-555 cruise missiles with a range of 2,000 miles.
That means that even a couple of the gigantic aircraft -- they can carry 99,000 pounds of munitions -- could "loiter" safely in international air space and still have the capability to hit multiple targets across the United States, from the southeast, bypassing the main antiaircraft, radar and antiballistic missile defense systems that are deployed across the arctic or along America's more northerly western and eastern coasts.
Also, the Bush administration has poured its antiballistic missile defense investment into ambitious Ground-based Mid-course Interceptors that could shoot down intercontinental ballistic missiles fired by a so-called rogue state like North Korea or Iran.
Supersonic manned bombers carrying long-range, stand-off cruise missiles offer a very different threat that would require a massive investment and modernization in Mach 2-plus combat fighters and antimissile systems better suited to shoot Russian supersonic cruise missiles, which fly at almost three times the speed of the venerable U.S. Tomahawk. The technology and weapons systems necessary exist or can be recreated. But the United States has not invested in them for decades.
RIA Novosti cited Drik as saying the Tu-160s were equipped only with fake missiles without warheads. He said their main purpose during the visit was to confirm their capabilities of carrying out such "loitering" exercises in a tropical environment.
The Russian government carefully calibrated the diplomatic and strategic issues surrounding the visits of the Tu-160s to Venezuela. It kept a cool-headed, balanced diplomatic profile over the visit. It took care to base the aircraft in Venezuela, thousands of miles away from the United States, and did not risk having them visit Cuba, which is only 90 miles off the shore of Florida. And, of course, manned bombers do not carry the same freighted sense of popular menace to the American public as intercontinental ballistic missiles.
The Kremlin also publicly and repeatedly emphasized that the aircraft carried out their missions "in strict accordance with international rules on the use of airspace over neutral waters, without violating the borders of other states," RIA Novosti said. And the news agency also quoted a Russian Foreign Ministry official as saying that the visit of the aircraft in no way indicated that Russia had created, or planned to create, any military, let along nuclear, base in Venezuela.
"Russia does not have military bases in Latin America," Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko said. "The landing at the Venezuelan air base was carried out in line with prior agreements between Russia and Venezuela."
The Tu-160s' mission to Venezuela was the latest extension of the more confident policy that former Russian President and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin approved in August 2007 of reviving the Cold War practice of Russian air force strategic patrols over the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic oceans. RIA Novosti reported that in the 13 months since then, Russian long-range bombers have flown more than 90 "strategic patrol flights."
As was the case during the Cold War, such flights have been closely monitored by U.S. and NATO combat aircraft. The two Tu-160s were closely escorted during their marathon flight down to Venezuela by such Western aircraft. Their crews never had to feel lonely. The U.S. government has made no secret of its concern about this new extension of Russian strategic air power. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated last month that Washington didn't like seeing Russian strategic bombers making long patrols once again along U.S. borders. She said the Kremlin was involved in a "dangerous game."

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/BMD_Focus_Tu-160s_tilt_nuclear_balance_999.html

Winger
09-25-2008, 08:58 AM
Overly alarmist article. For decades we've had hard to track SSBNs running anywhere they please fully loaded with ICBMs and now someone is freaking about detectable and trackable Bombers?

Mu-Meson
09-25-2008, 02:35 PM
Wow. From reading this article one almost gets the impression that the US Anti-missile systems aren't being designed, built, or operated with the goal of countering Russian systems. Radical, eh? One might almost think that they are actually aimed at North Korea, Iran, and other rogue states.

Winger
09-25-2008, 02:51 PM
Wow. From reading this article one almost gets the impression that the US Anti-missile systems aren't being designed, built, or operated with the goal of countering Russian systems. Radical, eh? One might almost think that they are actually aimed at North Korea, Iran, and other rogue states.

Gee, could it be? ;)

Britboy
09-25-2008, 02:55 PM
Why would bombers tilt any balance?

By the time they are launched and arrive, there would be ample time for the SSBNs, and then ICBMs, to have done their thing...

I think all bombers would do, would be to renuke the already-nuked cities, hours after everyone is already dead.

Winger
09-25-2008, 03:01 PM
Why would bombers tilt any balance?

By the time they are launched and arrive, there would be ample time for the SSBNs, and then ICBMs, to have done their thing...

I think all bombers would do, would be to renuke the already-nuked cities, hours after everyone is already dead.

One of the ideas that developed as a result of the bombers was the idea of the "pause". From the time that they would be scrambled with orders to attack there was the time it took for them to reach their point of no return(attack or no attack/return home). That time would give leaders to think and work out peace before committing more nuclear weapons against each other. Bombers were never meant to by a first strike nuclear capability. The B-2 however, kind of changed that even though we would never committ such an act.

Britboy
09-25-2008, 03:13 PM
Guess it sounds good if you believe that you can thrash out a compromise between world leaders in the time it takes your bombers to get to their points of no return.

In an actual war though I'd think it'd be bloody impractical. SSBNs and ICBMs are far more ready. You may have the pause with the bombers, but what does that matter when far-faster weapons are already being released and are en-route?

Plus bombers would just be a pain to operate - gotta keep a significant proportion of your forces airborne or ready to get airborne at any one time, regardless of maintenance issues, weather. Could very well be destroyed on the runway, or by enemy air force or air defences. Airbases vulnerable to sabotage and direct attack by enemy. Enemy gains information on your posture for war by noting flight operations from bomber bases - how many are airborne, how many sitting on tarmac ready to go etc. And all for what - a relatively slow and costly method of delivering weapons?

Bombers might have their uses in conventional war but for nuclear forces, SSBNs are the way to go I think - but god forbid that any of these weapons are used for anything but deterrence!

Winger
09-25-2008, 03:17 PM
Guess it sounds good if you believe that you can thrash out a compromise between world leaders in the time it takes your bombers to get to their points of no return.

In an actual war though I'd think it'd be bloody impractical. SSBNs and ICBMs are far more ready. You may have the pause with the bombers, but what does that matter when far-faster weapons are already being released and are en-route?

Plus bombers would just be a pain to operate - gotta keep a significant proportion of your forces airborne or ready to get airborne at any one time, regardless of maintenance issues, weather. Could very well be destroyed on the runway, or by enemy air force or air defences. Airbases vulnerable to sabotage and direct attack by enemy. Enemy gains information on your posture for war by noting flight operations from bomber bases - how many are airborne, how many sitting on tarmac ready to go etc. And all for what - a relatively slow and costly method of delivering weapons?

Bombers might have their uses in conventional war but for nuclear forces, SSBNs are the way to go I think - but god forbid that any of these weapons are used for anything but deterrence!

Deploying your bomber forces was a show of force. Something you can't do with SSBNs. So, they had their relevance even without one shot being fired.

The bombers were more strategic than tactical.

Alexandr
09-25-2008, 03:28 PM
actually they are not a bombers,but missile carriers,as well as tu-22,tu-95
x-55 - 150 ktons nuclear subsonic missile,5000 km range.
tu-160 can carry 16 of them

Britboy
09-25-2008, 03:30 PM
Hmmm. S'pose so. Interesting that you can have a platform not very suited to the task in hand but that is still important for deterrence! What with the need for a deterrence to be credible and everything... but I imagine you are right, bombers taking to the air would be the 'back off, Russia/China/USA, I'm serious' message, before the SSBNs would kick it off to be followed by many ICBMs...

I understand the US built its 'triad' on the basis of there being certain qualities each type of delivery had that the other types didn't have, thus covering all bases. This is true with bombers too, but if I was in charge of building a deterrent I'd prioritise and buy SSBNs before bombers...

Antey
09-25-2008, 04:11 PM
Please note, that US always had relatively week (underdeveloped in proportion to other branches) Air Defence. Strong reliance was put on AWACS & fighters for protecting ground forces, and homeland defence air was based mostly on... navy or off-shore. It was more focused on denying attacker to settle for firing position against CONUS.

In so-called document "First Strike" (I know, controversial) even Tu-22M Backfire was considered a grave trouble, as it would be mostly countred by legacy F-105 and other.

So while the flight of small number of Blackjacks (very formidable aircraft anyway) didn't change anything, it again focuses on fact, that either NMD and token US Air-Defence won't won't stop SRBM launched from nearby ship or cruise missile (or rather customized UAV) which are more likely to be employed by rouge states.

And (again, "First Strike") deterrent in order to work, must be visible. That's why USN reportedly was re-loading SSBNs for another patrol in sight of Soviet spy satelites. That's why bombers are necessary - and please note, that it's also most flexible part of any triad.

Pandemonium
09-25-2008, 04:30 PM
Why would bombers tilt any balance?

By the time they are launched and arrive, there would be ample time for the SSBNs, and then ICBMs, to have done their thing...

I think all bombers would do, would be to renuke the already-nuked cities, hours after everyone is already dead.


Just DUCK and COVER, children! :)

K0m1t4
09-27-2008, 09:38 PM
I doubt Tu160 and similar bombers are to go for USA in case of a nuclear meltdown, there are much closer targets for it in Europe, middle east, USN battle groups, ...

GazB
09-27-2008, 11:07 PM
I doubt Tu160 and similar bombers are to go for USA in case of a nuclear meltdown, there are much closer targets for it in Europe, middle east, USN battle groups, ...

The Tu-160 and Tu-95 will be used against targets in the US. Targets in the Middle East, Europe, China, Japan, USN battlegroups etc will be handled by the Tu-22M3s and any remaining Tu-16s, and of course regarding the battlegroups the Tu-142s.

GazB
09-30-2008, 04:47 PM
A few corrections:


wings give it a combination of unparalleled range and endurance in the air with the capability of bursts of flight at Mach 2, or 1,380 miles per hour at sea level.

Maybe 1,380km/h at sea level... mach 1.2 or so, but not mach 2 at sea level for an aircraft.


actually they are not a bombers,but missile carriers,as well as tu-22,tu-95
x-55 - 150 ktons nuclear subsonic missile,5000 km range.
tu-160 can carry 16 of them

Quite correct that the Tu-160 and Tu-95 have been missile carriers for the current airframes operational lives. The Tu-22M3 is used as both a missile carrier and a bomber.
The X-55 has a range of 2,500km and a modified version with extra fuel tanks has a range of 3,000km. It is the new, larger Kh-101 and Kh-102 (or X-101 and X-102) that has a range of 5,000km, is stealthy, and carry conventional and nuclear warheads respectively.
The Tu-160 can carry 12 cruise missiles including the X-55, X-555, X-101, and X-102. The Bear can carry 6 x X-55 or 6 x X-555 internally and 10 more missiles externally. The X-101 and X-102 are larger and can only be carried externally... so the Tu-95 can either carry 16 X-55s or X-555s, or it can carry 10 X-101s or 10 X-102s and 6 X-55s or 6 X-555s.