Donivanp
Major
Them's the targets not "Rondels"
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Them's the targets not "Rondels"Roundels?
Thanks one and all. That said I still think it looks like a Folland Gnats big brother
Two 405th FW F-100 with a OV-10 in tow
Tu-22M3Tu-22M
Tu-22 and Tu-22M(0-3) have virtually nothing in common except the name. The designation Tu-22M appeared as a result of political intrigue by Andrei Tupolev against Pavel Sukhoi. Tupolev deceived the Soviet leadership by claiming that the new airplane would be just a modification of the existing one, thus the development time and costs could be significantly reduced in comparison with the Sukhoi's project.Tu-22's all look the same to me.
Iraqi AF Tu-22B - a conversion of the Tu-22R recon to bomber for satellite countries.Libyan.
Please please gentlemen. Please do not fight over the target, the USN has him covered!Tu-22M3
Well, I am very curious to see the result of an attack by a regiment of Tu-22M3s on a USN carrier group using nuclear Kh-22s. IIRC, the Soviets considered that one regiment should sink one carrier before it heroically dies. I have nothing against the USN, but damn, it's awfully interesting to verify theories experimentally.Please please gentlemen. Please do not fight over the target, the USN has him covered!
Well, the longer theory stays theoretical the better we all are. A nuclear exchange is not on the top of my list of things I wish to prove out. In theory if it floats it can sink! This theory has been proven out time after time. The "unsinkable " always seems to sink. Titanic, Yamato, Bismarck, Musashi and Shinanio. All were considered unsinkable, all have found the bottom of the ocean. An aircraft carrier is no different. Biggest GD target on the ocean. It won't be easy, but it's not impossible.Well, I am very curious to see the result of an attack by a regiment of Tu-22M3s on a USN carrier group using nuclear Kh-22s. IIRC, the Soviets considered that one regiment should sink one carrier before it heroically dies. I have nothing against the USN, but damn, it's awfully interesting to verify theories experimentally.
The Unsinkable Molly Brown?..The "unsinkable " always seems to sink...
Ok, you're right, it's better to leave some theories unverified. Although the variant "a Tu-22M regiment heroically dies together with all its missiles" would satisfy me quite well. In fact, I've been watching the discussion about the real capabilities of Soviet aviation in combat with an aircraft carrier group for more than 30 years, but never formed a final verdict. It's just a pure researcher's curiosity.Well, the longer theory stays theoretical the better we all are. A nuclear exchange is not on the top of my list of things I wish to prove out. In theory if it floats it can sink! This theory has been proven out time after time. The "unsinkable " always seems to sink. Titanic, Yamato, Bismarck, Musashi and Shinanio. All were considered unsinkable, all have found the bottom of the ocean. An aircraft carrier is no different. Biggest GD target on the ocean. It won't be easy, but it's not impossible.
I will say that these are the very reason the F-14 and the Phenix missile were devloped and deployed. It's also why the F/A-18E/F can carry and launch upwards of ten to twelve AIM 120 missiles. That being said, it's not a common load out and should the Chinese or the Russians start with a sneak attack they would have an advantage. I don't know if the US has another Pearl Harbor resurgence in it, I'm sad to say.Ok, you're right, it's better to leave some theories unverified. Although the variant "a Tu-22M regiment heroically dies together with all its missiles" would satisfy me quite well. In fact, I've been watching the discussion about the real capabilities of Soviet aviation in combat with an aircraft carrier group for more than 30 years, but never formed a final verdict. It's just a pure researcher's curiosity.
PS. I saw the Tu-22s in the sky already in the mid-1970s for the first time.
I know about the capabilities of both the USN and the Soviet Air Force. But I don't have enough information about their real capabilities. Jamming resistance, target tracking limitations, even tactics - none of this has been detailed so far. And I doubt it will happen anytime soon. Just another never-ending discussion...I will say that these are the very reason the F-14 and the Phenix missile were devloped and deployed. It's also why the F/A-18E/F can carry and launch upwards of ten to twelve AIM 120 missiles. That being said, it's not a common load out and should the Chinese or the Russians start with a sneak attack they would have an advantage. I don't know if the US has another Pearl Harbor resurgence in it, I'm sad to say.
Even when I was in the Navy I always considered the Phoenix missile system a huge waste of money. While a great bit of tech I thought it was wasted funds for the following reasons.I will say that these are the very reason the F-14 and the Phenix missile were devloped and deployed. It's also why the F/A-18E/F can carry and launch upwards of ten to twelve AIM 120 missiles. That being said, it's not a common load out and should the Chinese or the Russians start with a sneak attack they would have an advantage. I don't know if the US has another Pearl Harbor resurgence in it, I'm sad to say.
Fictional, though this gives you a feel:Well, I am very curious to see the result of an attack by a regiment of Tu-22M3s on a USN carrier group using nuclear Kh-22s. IIRC, the Soviets considered that one regiment should sink one carrier before it heroically dies. I have nothing against the USN, but damn, it's awfully interesting to verify theories experimentally.