U.S. vulnerable to Tu-160s with X-555 cruise missiles

[satcom]

Hi, I found this story on Spacewar.com. Would D.S.P. E-3 AWACS , AN/TPS-71 ROTHR or PAVE PAWS be able to track the X-555 Missiles?


by Martin Sieff
Washington (UPI) Sep 17, 2008
Russia keeps upping the ante in its retaliatory moves for the greatly expanded U.S. and NATO presence in the Black Sea to support the former Soviet republic of Georgia. On Monday, the two Tupolev Tu-160 White Swan nuclear bombers it sent to Venezuela Sept. 10 carried out a six-hour patrol over the Caribbean Sea.

The RIA Novosti news agency Monday cited a Russian air force spokesman as saying the two Tu-160s -- NATO designation Blackjack -- were equipped only with dummy missiles without warheads.

Fiercely anti-American Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was so pleased to host the Tu-160s that he scheduled a personal audience with their crews Tuesday, the news agency said.

RIA Novosti also announced the two bombers would fly back to their home air base in southern Russia from Venezuela's Libertador Air Base on Wednesday, three days later than their originally announced departure date.

"The aircraft will take off from an airfield near Caracas on Sept. 18 and conduct a 15-hour return flight to Russia. Their landing at a base in Engels (Saratov region) is scheduled for Sept. 19," said Russian air force Lt. Col. Vladimir Drik.

The symbolism was very obvious. The United States had infuriated the Russians by sending warships in support of Georgia to the Black Sea, which has been a virtual Russian lake for the past 250 years. So the Russians sent two of their most formidable nuclear bombers over the Caribbean Sea, which has been an American preserve for well over a century.

But the Tu-160 deployments and flights carry a far more ominous message to President George W. Bush and whoever his successor is following November's elections: If Russia permanently deploys its Tu-160s in Venezuela, the United States could be at a greater risk than at any time since the darkest days of the Cold War.

For the Mach-2, 1,380 mph, super-long-range Tu-160s can carry stand-off X-555 cruise missiles with a range of 2,000 miles. That means that from a base in Venezuela, they could "loiter" over the Caribbean for 10 or more hours at a time with a capability of firing their Mach 2.8 cruise missiles that are capable of flying around 1,800 mph at sea level and hugging ground contours so their exact flight path could not be intercepted in advance with a range that could hit almost any target in the entire United States.

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has let virtually all its domestic defenses against manned bomber attacks vanish. The Blackjacks would fly well "under the umbrella" of even Patriot PAC-3 and U.S. Navy Standard Missile-3 anti-ballistic missiles, none of which are designed for manned aircraft interception. The cold fact is that the United States currently has no missile defense system capable of knocking down a Blackjack missile attack or of preventing a cruise missile launch unless combat fighter aircraft -- which are only a few hundred miles per hour faster than the Mach-2 Blackjacks -- can intercept them.

RIA Novosti described the Tu-160 Blackjack as "a supersonic, variable-geometry heavy bomber designed to strike strategic targets with nuclear and conventional weapons deep in continental theaters of operation."

The news agency cited a Russian air force spokesman as saying the two Tu-160s were equipped only with dummy missiles without warheads.

But, of course, if Tu-160s were to be based permanently at Libertador Air Base, or elsewhere in Venezuela in the future, the missiles they carried might not always be dummy ones.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/BMD_Focus_US_vulnerable_to_Tu-160s_999.html

 

[AegisFC]

That article was garbage. Manned bombers are not that much of a threat to the continental US, the US still fly's CAP missions and you can bet those bombers were tracked the entire time.

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has let virtually all its domestic defenses against manned bomber attacks vanish. The Blackjacks would fly well "under the umbrella" of even Patriot PAC-3 and U.S. Navy Standard Missile-3 anti-ballistic missiles, none of which are designed for manned aircraft interception. The cold fact is that the United States currently has no missile defense system capable of knocking down a Blackjack missile attack or of preventing a cruise missile launch unless combat fighter aircraft -- which are only a few hundred miles per hour
faster than the Mach-2 Blackjacks -- can intercept them.

Pure garbage, the writer has absolutely no idea what the hell he is talking about. SM-3 is a TBMD weapon but he either ignores or forgets the excellent SM-2 family and the new ESSM missile, it also seems he is assuming US fighters don't have long ranged missiles of their own. He also has no clue how E-3's and the various Links work and how they factor into the defensive picture.

The author is an idiot and it is best you ignore it.

 

[kato]

To be fair, he does say "intercept before the Blackjack launches its missiles" with regard to fighter aircraft. You can very well have a CAP intercept in BVR with long-range missiles, especially with AWACS support - but, even with several thousand fighters, the likelyhood of a CAP in range to intercept a Tu-160 before it enters operational Kh-55/-555 range to a target isn't necessarily all that good. We're talking about a ALCM that can easily be launched at Florida from behind Cuba after all.

Of course there's nothing stopping the Kh-55/-555 itself from being intercepted, although US SAM and ADA systems are largely not suitable to such a task, other than in the defense of naval groups.

 

[Firehorse]

Well, I suppose the USAF can station some F-15s in Columbia & Puerto Rico.
But, OTH, I don't think TU-160s will be permanently stationed in Venezuela.
A better and safer step for them, if the goal is to target CONUS, is to keep a few SSNs with LACMs off both coasts.
Please see updated http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=154287&postcount=20 .

I would be more concerned about them permanently stationed in Central Asia- from there they can patrol Indian Ocean overflying Iran, or India & China.
http://www.hardplaces.ca/resources/where_we_serve/central_asia/central_asia_map.gif

Joint drills of long-range aviation and navy ships are scheduled to be held in the Indian Ocean this year.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/outside-view-russian-air-power/

On this map, "Ty-160" is TU-160, and the table shows the bomber's re-fueled and unrefueled ranges (km) with 6 ALCMs, 101 & 555, launched from 2,000km & 4,500km from their targets. It's clear that even from their current Engels AFB most of the IO is covered.

http://nvo.ng.ru/images/2008-02-08/4-4-1z.jpg

 

[satcom]

Hi, Thanks every one for the replies

 

[PeterCrisp]

The US also has the nice protection of thousands of miles of ocean (unless Canada or Mexico invade) that need to be flown over to reach it.

 

[Jecito]

The US also has the nice protection of thousands of miles of ocean (unless Canada or Mexico invade) that need to be flown over to reach it.

That's the problem if Russia ever starts permanently placing Tu-160's in Venezuela/Cuba. They no longer have to fly thousands of miles to reach CONUS.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

That's the problem if Russia ever starts permanently placing Tu-160's in Venezuela/Cuba. They no longer have to fly thousands of miles to reach CONUS.

So what if they do, if they enter U.S. airspace then they will be shot down almost instantly.

 

[Feanor]

They don't need to enter US airspace to hit targets inside the US.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

They don't need to enter US airspace to hit targets inside the US.

No but by the time they get with in 100 miles of U.S. air space I can guarantee that there will be U.S. fighters flying right next to those TU-160s ready to fire if the bombers launch any missiles. It happens every year now Russian bombers fly close to U.S. or NATO territory and U.S. fighters are there to escort them.

 

[Grand Danois]

No but by the time they get with in 100 miles of U.S. air space I can guarantee that there will be U.S. fighters flying right next to those TU-160s ready to fire if the bombers launch any missiles. It happens every year now Russian bombers fly close to U.S. or NATO territory and U.S. fighters are there to escort them.

Not that easy. The problem is the massive stand off range of subsonic ALCM like the Kh-55. Intercepting a supersonic strat bomber that far off shore is not easy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-55

But a combo of E-2D/E-3 and tacair jets like F-16/F-18/F-15/F-35/F-22 has a good chance of picking up the missiles, if alert. Throw a little point defence SAMs into the mix and it gets better.

But it would be quite an assymetric posture in the face of a few Blackjacks.

Would be easier to keep tabs on them, there are only 16 around after all, and bomb their bases and airfields. Second layer is to shoot them down en route (and preferably at choke points) with forward CAP of F-15/F-22A plus KCs.

 

[stigmata]

I have both been told by a navy meteorologist, and read, that E-3 has a limited look down capability, and that they would need to be supplemented by E-8 JSTARS to reliably detect incoming cruise missiles in any reasonable range.
Quite a surprise for me, i guess my simulators are'nt tweaked...

 

[Feanor]

No but by the time they get with in 100 miles of U.S. air space I can guarantee that there will be U.S. fighters flying right next to those TU-160s ready to fire if the bombers launch any missiles. It happens every year now Russian bombers fly close to U.S. or NATO territory and U.S. fighters are there to escort them.

They can be launched from quite some distance away. Grand Danois is actually more correct in choosing the countermeasure.

 

[Stryker001]

I know Doc Rice gave em some stick about the bombers in Venezuela not being a threat in a recent speech.

They use the bombers because they have them and they have to make do with the air assets that they have. Capable of launching from 2500km of something like that, the reasons they are using the long range nuclear bombers is due to cost of a permanent bases and climate change, if based in Cuba, they would just fly away, in times of climate instability.

So the bases are considered to be static. But they will be based in both Cuba and Venezuela, out into the pacific, also the naval assets in Venezuela are close to the Panama Canal a strategic objective access to the Pacific, in time of increased tension the bomber will be in Cuba and Venezuela will be like a second base for a Pacific fleet.

The bears, Blackjacks, Backfire will set off in front of their carrier battle groups, when and if they get them as the spear head of the attack, that for another thread Russian carrier tactics.

All up 204 strategic bombers in service of different variants.
Backfire 124 = 248 missiles approx.
Bear 64 = 768 missiles approx.
Blackjack 16 = 192 missiles approx.

Total 1208 missiles approx.

All that is just the air assets in service not the ones in mothballs, so they can still be a headache because it ties up your defensive and offensive capabilities.

 

[Feanor]

You're only counting strategic aviation backfires. There are also several units under AVMF command. The thing of course is that in a confrontation, those assets would be needed closer to home. So realistically the main value of these exercises is political, and training-wise, rather then demonstrating a real strike capability against the continental USA.

 

[Polar Bear]

So realistically the main value of these exercises is political, and training-wise, rather then demonstrating a real strike capability against the continental USA.

I completely agree with your comment.

Especially when the real US mainland “menace” will come from nuclear submarines, and not at all from largely detectable and predictable aircraft.

I really think the main (and probably only) usage of Russian aircraft visiting Venezuela is political.

 

[chakos]

I am of the opinion that placing Blackjacks so close to CONUS is a mistake simply because they are too valuable a strategic asset to be risked by basing them so close to the enemy.

If what your trying to do is support Venezuela and generally be a pain in the arse to the US then i would suggest using Venezuela a little like the US used Greenland during the cold war. Treat is as an outpost but dont keep anything there that you would cry over too much if you lost.

I would think a large permenant base of maybe a regiment or 2 of Flankers, a regiment of Backfires supported by A-50's, Bear recon birds and Tankers.

Some teen series sam batteries to defend it (SA-10, SA-15, SA-17 and maybe a battery of SA-21 for long range work).

And in the naval arena maybe a small flotilla of FAC and another small flotilla of Kilos. Maybe a naval infantry regiment to provide land defence.

A big enough base to make the US think twice about pushing Venezuela, your definatelly being a pain in the arse and if you really want to make a niusance of yourself maybe one or two mobile SS-21 batteries.

:nutkick

 

[Feanor]

The Venezuelan constitution forbids foreign bases on their soil not to mention that none of that is available. The entire VVS has 7 regiments of Flankers. You're suggesting sending 1-2 of those to Venezuela? There are 4 strategic aviation Backfire regiments. One fourth of that to Venezuela?

 

[chakos]

The Russians have more than 4 regiments of Backfires overall, split between the Navy and Air force. I would also think that the Russians have more than 7 regiments (squadrons) of Flankers available. Maybe there are 7 being activelly funded and used at this very moment but thats not to say that there are not many more Flankers in storage.

Im sure Chavez would be 'modifying' the constitution if the Russians gave him such an offer. It would be his one chance to stick it to the Americans big time.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Not that easy. The problem is the massive stand off range of subsonic ALCM like the Kh-55. Intercepting a supersonic strat bomber that far off shore is not easy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-55

But a combo of E-2D/E-3 and tacair jets like F-16/F-18/F-15/F-35/F-22 has a good chance of picking up the missiles, if alert. Throw a little point defence SAMs into the mix and it gets better.

But it would be quite an assymetric posture in the face of a few Blackjacks.

Would be easier to keep tabs on them, there are only 16 around after all, and bomb their bases and airfields. Second layer is to shoot them down en route (and preferably at choke points) with forward CAP of F-15/F-22A plus KCs.

Kh-55 was obsolescent in the 80's, the VVS would need to effectively saturate the battlespace in order for missiles of that vintage to have any sort of significant effect in real terms.

2 Blackjacks pose virtually no real threat. Even if those two did reach launch range, the damage done by a dozen or so successful KH-55's would be practically insignificant, especially compared to the response.

in any case the US would most likely pre-empt, there are several US bases within tac air range of Venezuela, not to mention tac tom. If the VVS was to station a multi regiment formation of strategic air in Venezuela they would be awfully vulnerable. Better to operate them from Russia proper.

This deployment is totally political IMO.