Army Missile Defense Stretched Thin

Tupolev Tu-22M

>" The Tupolev Tu-22M (Russian: &#1058;&#1091;&#1087;&#1086;&#1083;&#1077;&#1074; &#1058;&#1091;-22&#1052;; NATO reporting name: Backfire) is a supersonic, variable-sweep wing, long-range strategic and maritime strike bomber developed by the Tupolev Design Bureau. Significant numbers remain in service with the Russian Air Force, and as of 2014 more than 100 Tu-22M are in use. ..."<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M

The Backfire bomber was comparable to our deep strike F-111 bomber. When the F-111's were sent to the boneyard, there was no replacement for the F-111. Today the Air Force uses the F-15E Strike Eagle as it's deep strike attack aircraft but the F-15 lacks the range and payload of the F-111.

Same thing happened to the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, they no longer have a deep strike aircraft with the retirement of the A-6 Intruder. SECDEF Dick Chaney canceled the A-12 during the G.H. Bush (41) administration that was suppose to be the A-6 replacement. The FA-18's don't have the range or payload comparable to the A-6 and I seriously doubt the F-35 will be able to fill the boots of the A-6.

Tupolev Tu-95

>" The Tupolev Tu-95 (Russian: &#1058;&#1091;&#1087;&#1086;&#1083;&#1077;&#1074; &#1058;&#1091;-95; NATO reporting name: "Bear") is a large, four-engine turboprop-powered strategic bomber and missile platform...

Russian Air Force: 63 Tu-95MS strategic bombers. As of 2012, 55 of them are combat-ready..."<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95

Tupolev Tu-160

>" The Tupolev Tu-160 (Russian: &#1058;&#1091;&#1087;&#1086;&#1083;&#1077;&#1074; &#1058;&#1091;-160, NATO reporting name: Blackjack) is a supersonic, variable-sweep wing heavy strategic bomber designed by the Tupolev Design Bureau in the Soviet Union...

the Tu-160 is the world's largest combat aircraft, largest supersonic aircraft and largest variable-sweep aircraft built. Only the North American XB-70 Valkyrie had higher empty weight and maximum speed. The Tu-160 has the heaviest take off weight of any military aircraft besides transports...

Russian Air Force - 16 were in service (12 combat and four in training) as of April 2008,[42] with the 121st Guards Heavy Bomber Regiment at Engels/Saratov.[43] As of 2013, 11 Tu-160s are combat-ready. "<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160

Todays U.S. military isn't the same Reagan military that G.H. Bush (41) went to war with in Iraq (Desert Storm)

But the Russian military isn't the same as it was during the Soviet Union, Cold War era.

But as we keep down sizing our military especially under the current administration, Putin is rebuilding his military.

 

That's what? About 176 bombers, right?

10 wings, with 18 to 24 aircraft per wing, means the AFNG has between 180 and 240 fighters on CONUS air defense duty.

My statement stands.

 

From my understanding, the Russian Bear bombers would never get in range of any American fighters, it would launch it's supersonic (Mach 5) cruise missiles a thousand miles from their targets.

The Backfire bombers are a deep strike attack aircraft that would likely be carrying six supersonic missiles.

If the Russians Blackjack bomber were to be sent to war against the CONUS, there would probably be hundreds of Russian ICBM's on their way at the same time.

I would say the Blackjack is more of a nuclear deterrant but have been used during exercises carpet bombing with conventional bombs like our B-52 have been used for.

I'm not that knowledgeable on the Russian Air Force bomber tactics. I'm pretty knowledgeable on the Russian navy's anti ship missiles and how the Russians plan to attack our surface fleets. While the U.S. Navy neglected naval surface warfare for over forty years, the Soviets/Russians didn't.

 

Wow, really? Cause I feel a whole lot safer.

Where are the Pershing missiles that were once all over Europe? Our ground based nuclear cruise missiles? Our fleet of B-52s with nuclear armed Tomahawks constantly orbiting outside of Russia? And all the B-1 bombers doing the same thing?

The first time entire classes of weapons were banned and dismantled, and you say nothing changed?

Sorry, can't take you seriously when you make claims like that.

Not quite, it has a fair amount of leeway, depending on the trajectory of the missile. I want to say the arc is something like ±20º. Not a lot of leeway, but not as narrow as you make it out to be. And with a range of almost 1,000 miles, they can easily reach anything they can see. The only real limitation is not the missile itself, but what the AEGIS RADAR system is able to actually see.

The AN-SPY is a damned fine RADAR, but it was never originally designed with seeing ICBMs in mind.

And how long did it take to get a CAP over Washington on 9-11?

Our defenses today are nothing like they were 30 years ago. As Russia keeps reminding us, getting many times within "shooting distance" with their bombers before our own Air Force is able to scramble enough fighters to make them pull back.

Besides, do not expect Bombers to make a major impact in WWIII if it was to ever happen. Most modern doctrine now actually has many of the roles reversed, with Missiles being the first strike as the bombers and subs linger as long as they can so they can be called in to mop up any targets the ICBMs missed.