What were the (RL) doctrine Tu-195/Tu-22 mission profile altitudes / launch ranges?

Does anyone have any information on how Bears and Backfires would attack a carrier group?

If no specific figures are available (or classified), then just general terms would be useful.

E.g., would they launch from high altitude or low altitude?

If they were to launch high, would they ingress low, and then pop up high to launch, or come in high and launch high?

Good question. Both Bear and Backfire are still in service, so info on this one might be hard to come by.

The notion that ships are still vulnerable to airstrikes is outdated.

The notion that ships are still vulnerable to airstrikes is outdated.

An interesting comment, can’t say I’m convinced

read "red storm rising" by tom clancy.

has a very realistic description of an attack on a carrier battle group.

think mass attack from max range. so the backfires will be flying high and not trying to hide. so their radar can acquire targets from maximum range.

(in the book they use deception, old badgers launching old missiles ahead of the backfires to confuse the US.. the intercepting f-14 waste their phoenix missiles on these, thinking they are the backfires)

the backfires will not get in range of the Sm2 missiles on the ships.

40 backfires each launching 4 kitchen missiles. = 160 missiles for aegis to deal with.

with the f-14 already having wasted theirs.

the swing arm Ticonderoga's cannot reload fast enough. and the VLS ones run out of missiles quick.

it does not end well for the carriers.

https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1247&context=nwc-review

Great read, thanks for that.

read "red storm rising" by tom clancy.

has a very realistic description of an attack on a carrier battle group.

 

think mass attack from max range. so the backfires will be flying high and not trying to hide. so their radar can acquire targets from maximum range.

 

(in the book they use deception, old badgers launching old missiles ahead of the backfires to confuse the US.. the intercepting f-14 waste their phoenix missiles on these, thinking they are the backfires)

 

the backfires will not get in range of the Sm2 missiles on the ships.

40 backfires each launching 4 kitchen missiles. = 160 missiles for aegis to deal with.

with the f-14 already having wasted theirs.

 

 

the swing arm Ticonderoga's cannot reload fast enough. and the VLS ones run out of missiles quick.

it does not end well for the carriers.

And that’s with conventional weapons.

I’d see the real danger being the introduction of nukes into the mix. Even a nearby miss might well be enough to put a whole carrier group out of action.

Read the linked article, and the soviets were considering using 5 nuclear armed aircraft for each carrier strike. No mention of yield, but that’s a massive threat, with very little that can counter it

yes. was a good read :)

modern missiles have even longer ranges. swarm programming. higher super sonic speed so CIWS have less chance to shoot them down. and they don't need to be targeted by a launching aircraft. they use GPS to get to the point they turn on their own radar.

and swarm means only one missile will turn on and feed targeting data to the others.

if it gets shot down another will take its place.

they also don't tend to sea skim in the final phase. they climb and then dive on the target at very high speed. which makes missile interception much harder. they sea skim at range to hide from radar but when they get detected they start climbing. and out climb intercepting missiles.

why the US never replaced the f-14 and phoenix with something similar. they gave up on interception before launch.

and to say ships are invulnerable today is wrong.

An interesting comment, can’t say I’m convinced

Well when it takes over 100 aircraft with a 50 percent loss rate to even prosecute the attack without even having a guarantee that it'll be successful...I call that the mathmatics of defeat.

The strike is as expensive as the ship lol

Thanks for the info, all!

Found the following sources about attack tactics:

From Yefim Gordon and Vladimir Rigmant, "Tupelov Tu-22 Blinder/Tu22M Backfire: Russia's Long Range Supersonic Bombers" (Aerofax/Midland Publishing Limited):

• Missile strikes against carrier groups were considered the toughest and most dangerous of wartime missions. Such a mission involved at least four Tu-22R's, up to a regiment of Tu-22K's, and one or two squadrons of escort fighters. The 'Rs came first, identifying the aircraft carrier in the group and advice the strike group of its exact location. As they approached the target, two aircraft stayed at high altitude, jamming enemy radars and relaying intelligence until the strike group (including specialized ECM aircraft) came up.
  
• The other two descended and pressed on towards the target, skimming the sea at 100m (328ft) and trying to get within visual range of the target (10 to 15km, 6.2 to 9.3 sm). On sighting the carrier they radioed its coordinates to the missile carriers which launched acting radar homing Kh-22 missiles at 300 km (186sm) range. Then things would get really ugly for the Tu-22Rs, as they had to dodge the anti-aircraft gunfire and missiles, not to mention the carrier's own fighters.
  
• New tacticts were developed for the Tu-22M to increase its combat potential. Covertly apporaching the target at ultra-low level, the 'Backfire' received guidance from Ilyushin/Beriev A-50 'Mainstay' AWACS aircraft and airborne command posts (ABNCPs), with Sukhoi Su-27 'Flanker-B' and MiG-32 'Foxhound' interceptors flying top cover.
  

And from Sergey Burdin and Alan Dawes, "Tupolev TU-22 Blinder: Supersonic Bomber, Attack, Maritime Patrol and Electronic Countermeasures Aircraft" (Pen and Sword Large Format Aviation Books), where the Kh-22 specs are described:

• Launch altitude: 10000-14000 m (32800-45932 ft)
  
• Cruising altitude: 22500 m (73820 ft)
  
• Maximum launch range against cruiser-sized target: 320 km (173 nm)
  
• Maximum launch range against naval area target: 450 km (243 nm)
  
• Minimum permitted launch range: 200 km (108 nm)
  
• The entire system (aircraft and missile) as designed for the launch of the AS-4 from altitutdes of 10,000-13,500 km (32,808-44,290 ft) and at speeds of 950-1,500 kph (513-810 kts)
  

The Burdin and Dawes book especially is EXCELLENT. Rich with design, engineering, operational, historical and personal detail. Apart from all the technical, military, and other such information, you also hear from crews about how it was flying the aircraft, as well as training/war stories, their living and working conditions, with lots of humor and personal anecdotes.

Well when it takes over 100 aircraft with a 50 percent loss rate to even prosecute the attack without even having a guarantee that it'll be successful...I call that the mathmatics of defeat.

Loss rate of 50%? I'm curious how you came up with that figure with slow Super Hornets/F-35Cs against newer fighter air-launched ASM missiles with supposed ranges of 300+ km?

And that's not even taking other threats like subs, ballistic anti-ship missiles, etc. into consideration.

You don't really have to sink the carrier, it's enough to have a large enough threat to force it to stay away in some open waters to make it ineffective, even more so with the abysmal attack radius of its current fighters.

Well when it takes over 100 aircraft with a 50 percent loss rate to even prosecute the attack without even having a guarantee that it'll be successful...I call that the mathmatics of defeat.

 

The strike is as expensive as the ship lol

Are you talking about a kamikaze attack? Otherwise I don't buy those numbers at all. Especially not with air launched stand off weapons.

When even the old cold war soviet antiship missiles have operational ranges of around 200nm and newer stuff surely isn't performing worse in that regard.

That standoff capability should more than prevent any direct tangle with the ships direct air defense systems for the launching aircraft.

Also where did you come up with the hundred aircraft theory??

Regards,

Snappy

Go read the article...page 13 talks about the size and disposition of a typical strike package:

''the doctrine for direct attacks on the carrier task force (carrier battle group or carrier strike group) originally included one or two air regiments for each air-craft carrier—up to seventy tu-16s. However, in the early 1980s a new, improved doctrine was developed to concentrate an entire Mra air division (two or three regiments) to attack the task force centered around one carrier. this time there would be a hundred backfires and badgers per carrier, between seventy and eighty of them carrying missiles.''

and page 18 talks about expected losses:

''all in all, the expected loss rate was 50 percent of a full strike—meaning that the equivalent of an entire Mra air regiment could be lost in action to a carrier task force’s air defenses, independent of the strike’s outcome.''

It's just what the person writing the article said you can take it or leave it, seems to me like it's pretty authentic. But anyways Air Defenses have also come along along way since the 1980s. Particularly on ships. The other issue is that these missiles with phenominial ranges require a huge Kill chain which is highly vulnerable to disruption, something the article brings out when talking about how the recce birds have to actually spot the carrier first and relay its position to the strike before they get shot down. Meaning without their intelligence the whole group is firing blind... That hasn't changed a whole lot since the 80s The missiles have to fly high to get those ranges and need to know where the ships are precisely, and that data has to come from somewhere. Besides the fact that the longer the missile has to fly the more opportunities the defender has to stop it.

My point is that its possible to attack a fleet of ships with aircraft but its no longer practical, considering the cost and feasibility of such an attack. As a CVSG commander I would be far more worried about submarines since if the enemy decides to launch three regiments and 70 missiles, or you know half their total air strength at me, lol I can see that coming that and do something about it. Can't do anything about the threat I don't know about. The challenge is that the air-wing has a hard time operating from the ranges the carrier has to stay at to maintain its airspace in today's situation.

Well when it takes over 100 aircraft with a 50 percent loss rate to even prosecute the attack without even having a guarantee that it'll be successful...I call that the mathmatics of defeat.

 

The strike is as expensive as the ship lol

A few thoughts:

- Your previous response about the ability to fully protect itself was NOT time specific.

As we've seen, even North Korea managed sneak a cheapo diesel sub underneath a USN carrier group, before surfacing close by. How hard do you think it would be to put a nuke on that sub and simply set it off either underneath of close to the carrier group?

Secondly, the only anti-ICBM systems are all currently land based. Whilst AEGIS might well be capable of handling a standard ballistic missile, it currently can NOT handle an inbound ICBM, which we know a number of nations have.

So I'd happily argue that a sufficiently motivated country could happily nuke a US carrier group at this time.

- With regard to the specific document that you've identified expected losses for, well let's think about that a little.

Your comment is that a 50% loss rate is not considered a victory.

I'm going to happily challenge that. Here we go:

- The proposal was a plan. People don't create plans to fail. Sure, it might not have worked, but bearing the "overwhelming force" approach that the Soviets used to take, my expectation is that they were expecting at least one of the 5 nukes to do the real work, with pretty much everything else to distract the nuclear armed bombers. Why 5? Just Soviet overkill to ensure that at least 1 will make it through. Do remember that it was the Soviets who developed the Tsar bomb.

- That's a loss rate for the Soviets in the cold war. Have you forgotten their methodology and "acceptance" of losses during WW2? The Soviets seemed to take a very "chess" based strategy, i.e. that some losses are acceptable, as long as they win. Again, back to the point above, I'd think that the Soviets would be quite happy with a 50 aircraft loss to be able to take out a US carrier group.

- Then, let's actually look at the numbers.

50 Soviet bombers might have 300 aircrew?

A US carrier group will have twice that many aircraft on board the carrier, then thousands of crewmen in not only the carrier, but also the protection group.

Don't even bother going down the cost comparison.

A few thoughts:

 

- Your previous response about the ability to fully protect itself was NOT time specific.

As we've seen, even North Korea managed sneak a cheapo diesel sub underneath a USN carrier group, before surfacing close by. How hard do you think it would be to put a nuke on that sub and simply set it off either underneath of close to the carrier group?

Secondly, the only anti-ICBM systems are all currently land based. Whilst AEGIS might well be capable of handling a standard ballistic missile, it currently can NOT handle an inbound ICBM, which we know a number of nations have.

So I'd happily argue that a sufficiently motivated country could happily nuke a US carrier group at this time.

 

- With regard to the specific document that you've identified expected losses for, well let's think about that a little.

Your comment is that a 50% loss rate is not considered a victory.

I'm going to happily challenge that. Here we go:

- The proposal was a plan. People don't create plans to fail. Sure, it might not have worked, but bearing the "overwhelming force" approach that the Soviets used to take, my expectation is that they were expecting at least one of the 5 nukes to do the real work, with pretty much everything else to distract the nuclear armed bombers. Why 5? Just Soviet overkill to ensure that at least 1 will make it through. Do remember that it was the Soviets who developed the Tsar bomb.

- That's a loss rate for the Soviets in the cold war. Have you forgotten their methodology and "acceptance" of losses during WW2? The Soviets seemed to take a very "chess" based strategy, i.e. that some losses are acceptable, as long as they win. Again, back to the point above, I'd think that the Soviets would be quite happy with a 50 aircraft loss to be able to take out a US carrier group.

- Then, let's actually look at the numbers.

50 Soviet bombers might have 300 aircrew?

A US carrier group will have twice that many aircraft on board the carrier, then thousands of crewmen in not only the carrier, but also the protection group.

Don't even bother going down the cost comparison.

So let me stop you right there, if we're bringing nukes into this then the whole thing is silly since, you could also just strike their bases before they get the package in the air with SLBMs adding nukes turns everything into an all or nothing conversation. If we're ok using nukes we really don't need the carrier air wing for anything anymore. I'm talking about conventional warfare. As far as the numbers go, again if your ok with a 50 percent loss rate your not going to be able to repeat that attack against every strike group, you couldn't repeat it against two groups because You'll run out planes before I even come close to running out of ships. It's not a sound strategy.

So let me stop you right there, if we're bringing nukes into this then the whole thing is silly since, you could also just strike their bases before they get the package in the air with SLBMs adding nukes turns everything into an all or nothing conversation. If we're ok using nukes we really don't need the carrier air wing for anything anymore. I'm talking about conventional warfare.

Well just MAYBE, you should have included that caveat earlier in the discussions.

After all, you supposedly read the linked article, which very much included an intent to use nuclear armed bombers.

As for "we'll hit them first", oh yeah.

Since when have carrier aircraft had range further than a land based bomber like a Tu95 of Tu22?

The simple fact is that a "sufficiently motivated" enemy very much has an opportunity to knock out a carrier group. Sure, that's almost certainly likely to result in at least a nuclear response, but for a country that is already been attacked by the US, would you put it past them?

Do remember that we now have I believe at least 9 known countries with nukes, and god knows how many others who may have bought one from the Soviets post the collapse, or might just be given one quietly by a friendly super-power.

Well just MAYBE, you should have included that caveat earlier in the discussions.

After all, you supposedly read the linked article, which very much included an intent to use nuclear armed bombers.

 

As for "we'll hit them first", oh yeah.

Since when have carrier aircraft had range further than a land based bomber like a Tu95 of Tu22?

 

The simple fact is that a "sufficiently motivated" enemy very much has an opportunity to knock out a carrier group. Sure, that's almost certainly likely to result in at least a nuclear response, but for a country that is already been attacked by the US, would you put it past them?

Do remember that we now have I believe at least 9 known countries with nukes, and god knows how many others who may have bought one from the Soviets post the collapse, or might just be given one quietly by a friendly super-power.

I agree with you, but what that means is that carriers are basically invulnerable to everything short of nuclear attack which requires the attacker to expend almost their entire force anyways, and WILL result in a retaliation.

I agree with you, but what that means is that carriers are basically invulnerable to everything short of nuclear attack which requires the attacker to expend almost their entire force anyways, and WILL result in a retaliation.

Now that, I agree with.

Sure, might be possible by saturating the defences, but it would be damn hard, and even the Soviet doctrine included the use of nukes.

The question probably faced nowadays is the cost to saturate a carrier groups defence.

Eg use be bombers to fly to within say 100miles, then drop so many drones that the ships run out of defensive missiles.

Might sound far fetched, but as drones get cheaper, it’s a potential risk.

Now that, I agree with.

Sure, might be possible by saturating the defences, but it would be damn hard, and even the Soviet doctrine included the use of nukes.

 

The question probably faced nowadays is the cost to saturate a carrier groups defence.

Eg use be bombers to fly to within say 100miles, then drop so many drones that the ships run out of defensive missiles.

Might sound far fetched, but as drones get cheaper, it’s a potential risk.

Yes definitely, any weapon system that allows you to penetrate those defenses and get in close is going to be much more effective because as Dudikoff said even a small hit to the carrier is probably going to result in a mission kill. You may not be able to sink the carrier conventionally but it would definitely be possible to take it out of the equation for a time. In other words its very very difficult to get through the groups defenses but at the same time it also is not impossible to go around those defenses in this day and age.

It's not hard to see why the USN now is very concerned with small boat and drone attacks, and why they are pursuing things like Directed Energy weapons against those threats.

Go read the article...page 13 talks about the size and disposition of a typical strike package:

My point is that its possible to attack a fleet of ships with aircraft but its no longer practical, considering the cost and feasibility of such an attack. As a CVSG commander I would be far more worried about submarines since if the enemy decides to launch three regiments and 70 missiles, or you know half their total air strength at me, lol I can see that coming that and do something about it. Can't do anything about the threat I don't know about. The challenge is that the air-wing has a hard time operating from the ranges the carrier has to stay at to maintain its airspace in today's situation.

Since you didn't mention the 80s context (which to be fair might be implied given the thread), I was commenting from today's perspective where the new air-launched ASM's are faster and longer ranged while at the same time USN fighters have gotten slower, shorter legged, shorter armed and with less time on station than was the case back then (F-14s with AIM-54s), compounded with the lack of a proper tanker aircraft.

Well , I did read the relevant parts of the article and the numbers therein.However that article deals with the specific topic of attacking a carrier battle group , including its associated dedicated fleet air defense of F-14(which btw probably accounts for a majority of the expected 50% loss rate).

That , however is an entirely different matter than your original blanket statement of, quote :

„The notion that ships are still vulnerable to airstrikes is outdated“

Ships, as in, Destroyers,Cruisers,frigates, oilers, whatever, anything that is not a carrier with its own dedicated air defense aircraft (or accompanied by such a carrier) is still very vulnerable to air attacks.

If this was not so, among other things, give Boeing a call and advise them to cease the useless harpoon anti-ship production.

Regards,

Snappy

„The notion that ships are still vulnerable to airstrikes is outdated“

 

Ships, as in, Destroyers,Cruisers,frigates, oilers, whatever, anything that is not a carrier with its own dedicated air defense aircraft (or accompanied by such a carrier) is still very vulnerable to air attacks.

If this was not so, among other things, give Boeing a call and advise them to cease the useless harpoon anti-ship production.

 

Regards,

 

Snappy

See that I don’t agree with, I think that’s a WW2 thought. Where the threat from the air was not taken seriously for a long time prior to events in that conflict. Nowadays it’s taken extremely seriously. To the point where I don’t think a single ship is even going to operate outside their protective blanket of air defense in a tactical situation. It’s basically reversed itself, aircraft now can’t get anywhere near a ship.

Further In regards to an isolated vessel. Could they operate like that? sure. If so would they be at risk of a saturation style air-launched cruise missile attack? Absolutely. So Would they ever operate like that? Absolutely not. Why? Because it’s too risky. The threat from the air can be dealt with simply with the right tactics.

Speaking of Harpoon it’s being phased out for the exact reason I’m talking about. LRASM is replacing it for the USN because it has low observe-ability and much better autonomous capabilities. Rather then penetrate extremely robust ship IADS with numbers and kinematics it tries to defeat them without being engaged by outer shells of their ADEZ, to get in close where it’s far harder to shoot down.

Yes, they likely don't operate as single ships in wartime situations. Of course threat by air is taken extremely serious these days. No one doubted that.

Air defense? Sure, but not with each ship having a constant blanket of aircraft cover. It will be ship based defense systems in a lot of cases for many ship groups and many navies, since there simply are not enough or any aircraft at all available for every ship in blue water ops. (Most navies don't have any aircraft all, let alone long range fleet defense)

Which makes them vulnerable to air attacks.

Will those come at a cost? Possibly yes. And surely the defense systems will take out some of incoming stuff.

Tactics yes. But that requires the necessary ressources.

And sometimes providing air cover is not possible due missing ressources or circumstances .In a large scale peer to peer war or against a more powerful opponent this is to be expected.

It's not always the total dominance you're used to or thinking of, where the US Navy sails in somewhere with Carrier strike group and is able to obliterate anything in the air a few hundred miles out in advance.

There are other navies with less equipment and other adversaries on near or equal footing,.

So the blanket notion that air attacks on ships are outdated, well I'd reconsider that..

The very fact that Harpoon is still in service and LRASM was introduced should show that it is not true.

Regards,

Snappy