OK, they haven’t been the Red Air Force in many years, but in USAF exercises the “other guys” were always referred to as “Red Air”.
Like many here, I’ve been trying to figure out exactly what the Russians are trying to accomplish in Syria. I’m not going to dive too deeply into the politics of the matter, as others here probably know more about it than I do. Generally speaking I would say they’re trying to prop up their longtime ally and to hang on to their last toe-hold on the Middle East.
So much for the “why”, let’s take a look at how they’re doing it. Being a bomber guy I’ll start with the bombers.
A quick refresher on NATO code names. B means Bomber and F means Fighter. One syllable means it has propellers and two means it’s a jet.
Surprisingly for as long as the TU-95 “Bear” has been around, this marks the first time it has actually seen combat. As with most bombers in the modern era, the aircraft itself isn’t the main threat. It’s his skinny wing-men that you should be worried about. Just like its B-52 counterpart, it’s an old system that’s been constantly upgraded over the years. It looks like the TU-95MS has pylons for up to eight of the new Kh-101 missiles.
The TU-22M “Backfire” is kind of an odd duck. When we first saw it in the early 1970s we thought it was designated TU-26, since it shares very little with the TU-22 “Blinder” it was developed from. It’s also an odd size for a bomber, about halfway between a B-1 and an F-111.
The Backfire’s odd size makes sense once you realize that it was mainly intended to attack targets in Europe and Asia, rather than as a true intercontinental bomber. It isn’t always all about us.
US carrier battle groups would also have been a prime target for these. Soviet tactics against our carriers would have been to saturate the area with air, land and sea launched missiles. If they coordinated their attack properly, enough might “leak through” the defenses to do some damage.
Yes, with air refueling it could theoretically hit targets in the US but it’s doubtful the Russians would have used it for that mission. Of course, that didn’t stop us from making a big fuss about it back in the 1980s. To the point that the Russians actually removed the air refueling probes (although they could be reattached fairly easily).
The Backfire has seen the most combat by far of all Russian bombers. It’s taken part in pretty much every conflict the Russians have been involved in since Afghanistan.
One of these was lost in the war with Georgia in 2008, probably to an SA-11 SAM. This may have been a case of Russian electronic countermeasures not working well against their own missiles. Our countermeasures on the B-52 were optimized to work against Russian systems and didn’t work as well against our own.
Depending on the source, anywhere from 14 to 24 Backfires took part in the Russian bomber attack on Syria. The TU-22Ms dropped “iron” bombs from high altitude against targets in Syria.
The Backfires were supported by small numbers of TU-95s and TU-160s firing cruise missiles.
I don’t know what kind of accuracy they achieved. For us, anything within 400 feet of the aim point was considered a “good” high altitude bomb drop. Apparently they’re not too worried about collateral damage.
The flagship of the Russian bomber fleet is the TU-160 “Blackjack”. It looks a bit like a B-1 but it’s significantly bigger. It has a wingspan of 189 feet (swept forward) compared to 137 feet for the B-1. It has a maximum weight of just over 600,000 pounds compared to 326,000 for the B-1. It also differs from the “Bone” in that it was designed primarily as a missile carrier. This was the last bomber actually designed during the Soviet era. The Russians appropriately call it the “White Swan”.
While capable of Mach 2, the Russians have restricted it to Mach 1 or so to make the airframes last longer. It’s an impressive aircraft, but keep in mind that they only have 15 of these things and 4 of those are dedicated for training. There is talk of building more, but I’m not sure when or how many.
The Russian bombers reportedly carried the stealthy Kh-101 cruise missile, with a range of around 3,000 miles. Some Russian media sources claim 6,000 miles for this missile but I’d say that’s highly doubtful given its size. The Kh-101 is a relatively new missile and I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re using Syria as a testing ground for their new stuff.
In addition to bombers, the Russians have somewhere between 35 and 50 fighters operating from Khmeimim airbase in Syria.
The SU-24 “Fencer” is roughly equivalent to our F-111, which is no longer in service. It mirrors the F-111’s swing wing and side-by-side seating arrangement. While it was influenced by the F-111 it is most certainly not a “copy”. Variable geometry was the hot setup in the late 60s and early 70s as evidenced by the MiG-23, Panavia Tornado, F-14 and B-1.
The SU-34 “Fullback” was intended to replace the SU-24. Based on the SU-27 air superiority fighter, I would say it’s roughly equivalent to our F-15E Strike Eagle which replaced the F-111. I’m rather impressed that they managed to fit a galley and a toilet back behind the crew seats. They obviously wanted the ability to do some long missions with this aircraft.
The SU-34s have reportedly used the BETAB-500 runway cratering bomb to hit underground bunkers. Kind of a poor-man’s “bunker buster”. They have also been seen carrying the KAB-500L laser-guided bomb.
Those seem to be the only reports of precision guided weapons being used. Most of what I’m seeing loaded on Russian aircraft are standard “dumb” bombs. The absence of any type of drag devices makes me believe these are “slicks” as we called them and that they are being dropped from medium to high altitude.
This makes sense from a tactical standpoint. Flying at say 15,000 feet would keep them above most anti-aircraft fire and man-portable SAMs.
Dropping dumb bombs from medium altitude is also a recipe for collateral damage. Some reports also have them dropping cluster munitions.
I don’t know how much success they’re having, but I have heard reports that the air campaign will have to last much longer than originally planned. That makes me suspect they’re not seeing the results they’d hoped for.
Okay, let’s talk about the SU-24 incident with Turkey. Depending on who you believe, the Russian SU-24 was either just inside Turkish airspace or just outside Turkish airspace. The Turks claim it was roughly 1.3 miles inside Turkish airspace for roughly 17 seconds.
Which side people come down seems to depend on who the perceived “bad guys” are here. Turkey is a US ally and NATO member, despite some strained relations in recent years. Putin is…….well he’s Putin.
That being said, Turkey may actually be in the wrong here. If our friend does something wrong, well it’s still wrong. Russia was certainly wrong to violate their airspace but the Turkish response may have been disproportionate. It’s a big deal to shoot down another country’s aircraft, even if it’s in your airspace.
What it comes down to is “hostile intent”. The Russian jet may very well have strayed into Turkish airspace due to a navigational error. I could easily see someone getting a mile off course in cruise flight. The point is, the Sukhoi was obviously not on its way to bomb anything inside of Turkey so there was no hostile intent. I’m not a lawyer, but from what I know International law sides with the Russians here.
What would constitute “hostile intent”? Let’s say they were headed at high speed straight towards a Turkish airbase with their radar in an attack mode. Then the Turks would have been justified in using deadly force. Flying straight and level at 15,000 feet doesn’t really sound like hostile intent.
The Turkish F-16s were acting within their rules of engagement. Rules of engagement, however, do not override international law.
Likewise, the killing of a parachuting crew member by Turkmen rebels is a clear cut war crime. If somebody we like commits a war crime, guess what, it’s still a war crime. Regardless of what anyone else has or has not done. Each act must be examined individually.
I honestly don’t know what the Turks were up to here. If I were a conspiracy buff I’d say that they were lying in wait for the Russians to screw up so that they could “send a message”. This is pure speculation on my part. I don’t know where in their chain-of-command the order originated.
If they were trying to send a message, they may not like the answer. The Russian response has been to ship S-300 and S-400 surface-to-air missiles to Syria. Fire, meet gasoline.
These are extremely capable missile systems. Believe me, when these things get deployed somewhere we take notice.
The S-400 is a fairly new system. It uses three missiles of different range and capability to cover everything from 5 meters (yikes!) on up to low Earth orbit (slight exaggeration). Oh, and it can hit out to 250 miles. Basically you can’t fly above it, below it or around it. Missiles like this are what make me glad I retired.
Just to make things even more interesting, Iran now reportedly plans to deploy combat aircraft to Syria. Fasten your seatbelts folks, it could be a bumpy ride.