Military Review

American bombers against Soviet aircraft carriers

95

American strategic bomber B-52 flies around the Soviet "aircraft carrier" - heavy aircraft carrying cruiser pr. 1143. We used to think that everything was the other way around, but it was so


The United States has a long history the use of multi-engine bombers in naval warfare. During World War II, US Army Air Corps aircraft were used as naval weapon... The success, however, was half-hearted.

The small twin-engine bombers performed very well in attacks on Japanese convoys and ships during the battles in New Guinea, and the B-29 proved extremely successful in mine laying, causing mine damage comparable to that of nuclear weapons.

But the attempt to use multi-engine bombers to attack surface ships was unsuccessful. The bombers sank several transports and damaged a few minor warships. The Americans tried to use them in the battles of the fleets, twice these machines flew out to strike during the battle of Midway, but to no avail. The B-24s that replaced these aircraft were also noted in actions against naval targets and also with very modest results. The bombers did not destroy any significant warships. This was all the more disappointing because before the war, striking surface targets by the Americans was seen as one of the tasks of the bomber aviation.

After the end of World War II, the US Air Force periodically returned to operations over the sea. They were very large-scale during the Cuban missile crisis.

Over the sea, reconnaissance was the basis of the planes of the strategic aviation command. At the request of the Navy, several air units, armed with RB-47 reconnaissance aircraft and KS-97 aircraft refuellers, carried out reconnaissance tasks in the area indicated by the Navy. They discovered the Soviet tanker "Grozny" and guided a US Navy destroyer at it. During reconnaissance missions, one aircraft and crew were lost (for non-combat reasons). But these were not shock tasks.

The US Air Force returned to strike missions over the sea later, in 1975. Then, after the slaps received from the Soviet Navy in the Indian Ocean during the Indo-Pakistani war, and, more importantly, in the Mediterranean in 1973, during the Arab-Israeli war, the Americans decided to take on the Soviet Union for real. It will not be possible to list everything that they decided to do (and then did) within the framework of one article, but one of their actions was to involve them in the fight against the Soviet fleet not only the US Navy, but also the Air Force (and later the Coast Guard).

The Americans, being the strongest side, used not only direct methods of confrontation (build more ships than the Russians, gain technological superiority), but also asymmetric ones.

One of which was the involvement of bombers in naval strike missions, since the Soviet example was before our eyes. The author of this idea was Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger, who proposed to equip B-52 bombers with the latest anti-ship Harpoon cruise missiles. In the same year, joint working groups of the Air Force and the Navy were formed and the mechanism of interaction of these types of the Armed Forces in operations to combat the Soviet fleet was determined.

Beginning in 1975, the bombers of the US Air Force Strategic Air Command began training in naval reconnaissance, mine laying and missile strikes against surface targets in the interests of the Navy.

The first and most important task was to practice the skills of finding naval targets and interacting with the Navy. Then came the development of a tactical model, the contours of which were, in general, clear. As the readiness of bombers to carry out such tasks increased, they would be armed with missiles.

Preparation for battle


The Strategic Air Command (SAC) of the United States Air Force took pride in the training of its pilots. And they were really very well prepared in every way. Constant "training" of pilots to break through the most powerful air defense system in the world - the Soviet one, plus the experience of the ten-year war in Vietnam, plus technology that was continuously improved (being perfect already at the time of creation), the tradition of strategic bombing dating back to World War II, a certain amount of fearlessness collectively made the pilots truly high-class professionals. Since flights over a non-targeting surface for the US Air Force personnel have also always been the norm (otherwise the target cannot be reached, it is overseas) and since the B-52 navigation equipment was very accurate, the B-52 pilots in training operations to search for surface ships performed well immediately.

Since 1976, bombers began to actively practice the "hunt" for American and British ships in the open ocean and interaction with ships of the Navy, which, being constantly in the same areas in which the enemy was located (USSR Navy), could give and gave target designation to pilots of "fortresses ".

From the memoirs of the commander of the B-52 bomber Dag Aitken:

“I was the Operator Officer of the 37th Bomber Squadron of the 28th Bomber Wing in Ellsworth during the Iranian hostage crisis. In December 1979, we were caught by a sudden check of combat readiness from the SAC headquarters, and we were not told in connection with what task. During this check, we were confronted with the fact that we immediately need to deploy to Guam AFB. Three hours later, three KS-135 tankers were already in the air, and after three more the first B-52s also went on a mission. "

Aitken flew an "H" modification bomber with bypass engines and a longer range than old aircraft, in those years these machines were specialized in nuclear bombing, and the first month in Guam they mastered new tasks for themselves: mining, conventional bomb strikes and sea reconnaissance ... Along with the planes from Ellsworth in Guam, crews from other air bases, including the "local" ones, also trained. After a month of training over the sea, most of the aircraft returned to the bases, but several crews, including Aitken's crew, remained and continued training. A new introduction soon followed.

“About a week later, we received directly from the OKNSh a task deep in the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf to track the Soviet fleet. At that time, the US 7th Fleet was operating in the region, which was continuously monitored by the Soviets (the word "Soviets", which we usually translate as "Soviets", is actually translated this way. There were "Soviets" - Soviet, now "Russians" - Russians. - Auth.), And their bombers "Bear" (Tu-95), flying from Afghanistan (as in the memoirs, in reality this is an extremely dubious statement. - Auth.) Interfered with our aircraft carriers. The OKNSH wanted to clearly show the Soviets and Iranians that our strategic air power could reach them even at such a range.
...
Our small headquarters, together with colleagues from the local (Guam. - Author) headquarters, planned the operation overnight and began it early in the morning. Since the Soviets were constantly conducting radar surveillance from their reconnaissance trawlers off the coast of Guam, two B-52s launched at night under the guise of KS-135 tankers flying to Diego Garcia according to the ICAO flight plan for these aircraft. The KOU operators were instructed not to turn on the sights, and the navigators were allowed to use only those frequencies that were used by the KS-135.
...
It was, without a doubt, a success. The crews made contact with the ships of the Navy, which gave them a bearing to the Soviet ships. During the first pass, the Soviet sailors relaxed on the decks, confident that their Bear bombers were on their way. During the second passage, there was no one on the decks. "

This flight took 30 hours and 30 minutes in time and required five air refueling.

These flights were more and more frequent. With the development of such tasks, the pilots of the SAC "moved on" and trained in low-altitude breakthroughs to surface ships. The B-52 was not initially adapted for low-altitude flights, but later the aircraft's avionics and control system were modernized in order to give some opportunities to perform such flights, while their crews worked out such flights very intensively. It was believed that without this, bombs could not break through to targets deep in Soviet territory. Over land, these bombers could confidently go to the target at altitudes of several hundred meters due to the skills of the crews and avionics, allowing them to perform such flights.

At the beginning of preparation for naval operations, the B-52 crews flew at altitudes of tens of meters. From the memoirs of the commander of the B-52, and later the writer Jay Lacklin:

“We had more problems with missions to fly over American ships. Once, while working with a US Navy helicopter carrier, I asked them over the radio what the height of their mast was above the water. Surprisingly, they didn't know. It looks like it depended on the loading of the ship. "

The height of the mast, in any case, did not exceed 50 meters, which means that the heights at which the B-52 worked then were measured in a few tens of meters and the risk of catching the mast with a wing was quite real. It's amazing how a high-altitude eight-engine bomber could do anything at such an altitude.

American bombers against Soviet aircraft carriers

The flight of a pair of B-52s near the aircraft carrier "Midway", 1980. The height is not more than 120 meters above sea level, pay attention to the white "anti-nuclear" coloring of the bottom - earlier these aircraft specialized in nuclear strikes (the US Air Force has "nuclear" and " non-nuclear "specialization). Flying in pairs in a dense atmosphere at low altitudes does not present any particular difficulty for the crews, although the plane was not originally intended for this.

However, after several years of intensive training, the ability of the SAC pilots to "sneak" to surface ships became even better.

In the spring of 1990, in the Persian Gulf, a pair of B-52s, performing a planned flight as part of sea reconnaissance operations, requested permission from the Ranger aircraft carrier for a low-altitude training flight. Permission was granted.

A dialogue soon followed that became a legend in the American Air Force.

AW Ranger: Tell me where you are.
B-52: We're five miles from you.
AV Ranger: We do not observe you visually.
B-52: Look down.

And they looked.




This is not a photo montage

Such a passage, even for a specialized low-altitude aircraft with appropriate aerodynamics, with an automatic terrain-following system, would be a serious test. And here it was done by a bomber.

Soon, the same span was performed near AB Independence.


Span near AB "Independence"

All this clearly shows how seriously the Air Force approached the preparation for naval operations.

But all this was needed to break through to the target and hit it with bombs, while the initiators of bringing the B-52 to the war at sea had completely different plans.

The tactical scheme for using the B-52 against Soviet ships was developed in parallel with the pilots mastering the search for sea targets and working together with the Navy.

From the article US Air Force Lieutenant General (Ret.) David Deptula:

“The concept of the operations was that the naval E-52 or Orions, or Air Force-owned E-2 AWACS, allocated for the attack of the B-3, would attack the Soviet surface forces. Up to ten B-52s could descend to low altitudes and, approaching the target from different directions, carry out a massive salvo of Harpoon missiles, sufficient to “saturate” and break through the air defense ”.

As the experience of low-altitude flights of the B-52 over the sea and their use in aerial reconnaissance shows, such a scenario was quite realistic.

In 1983, the armament of the Harpoon anti-ship missile bombers began. Aircraft of modification "G" were armed as less valuable than "H", which had more economical engines, longer flight range and intended for strikes with bombs and cruise missiles on the territory of the USSR. By this time, the crews of the bombers were fully prepared to perform any missions over the sea, no matter how difficult they were. Bomber groups were deployed in Maine in the United States and in Guam.


An Air Force missile carrier armed with anti-ship missiles, specializing in naval targets. A familiar concept, isn't it?

Since 1983, the United States has acquired the ability to use missile-carrying base aircraft against naval targets.

Would these operations have been successful? On this topic in the United States itself during the Cold War, and at its apogee, in 1987, a group of Navy and Air Force officers conducted a special study "B-52 Maritime operations: the anti-surface warfare mission" ("B- 52 in naval operations: the task of countering surface forces "). It has long been declassified and for some time was in the public domain. The conclusions in this study were as follows.

Assessment of the Air Defense Capabilities of Soviet Surface Formations in Repulsing a Missile Strike of Strategic Bombers


The American study sheds light on many issues, but we are interested in how the US Air Force evaluated the enemy, that is, us, in terms of the ability to resist. Based on intelligence collected over the years, the Americans made the following conclusions on the combat stability of a single ship of the USSR Navy.

Table 1



Table 2


Table 3


Unfortunately, there is no methodology in the document and there is no decoding of what kind of ship is meant by "escort". All this is clearly some kind of averaged data, but they, apparently, are not very far from reality.

Any B-52, armed with anti-ship missiles, carried up to 12 missiles on underwing pylons. This revision was carried out on all machines that participated in maritime operations. But the above study tells us that up to 8 missiles could be placed in the bomb bay "at the cost of minimal improvements." And then one plane could carry up to 20 anti-ship missiles. A group of ten vehicles, thus, guaranteed to penetrate any conceivable air defense of any ship group of the Soviet Navy, at least if we start from American estimates.


At the same time, the Americans made a reservation: all of the above is true for the anti-ship missiles, which are aimed at the first target that fell into the GOS review sector. But if we assume that the anti-ship missile can carry out target selection, then the consumption of missiles to defeat the main target, according to this document, will be significantly lower.


All tables are Russian adaptations of reference tables from the American document.

Note: Americans in this study do not use the domestic concept of "main goal", but the High Value Unit (HVU) - a unit of high value. If there is only one such in the order, then HVU coincides in meaning with our "main goal". But from the American point of view, there may be several units of high value in the opponent's order.

The most interesting thing in the study is one of the intermediate conclusions, which is very consonant with the Soviet approach to the problem:

“The conclusion is obvious: giving B-52s armed with Harpoons to surface combat groups is not at all a luxury in any scenario of a war at sea. In a preemptive strike against a large Soviet naval group with several high value units and escort ships, adding firepower to the B-52 may be absolutely necessary to seize the initiative and win the battle. "

In fact, the Americans came to the same conclusions that at one time gave rise to naval missile-carrying aviation in the USSR, and for the same reasons.

To fight their "naval" bombers, however, did not have to. The Cold War is over. In the early nineties, the program of attracting the B-52 to the strike missions of the Navy was discontinued, and when all aircraft of the "G" modification were withdrawn from service, the remaining aircraft were not upgraded to use anti-ship missiles.

The Strategic Air Command lost the ability to attack surface targets with missile weapons. In the conditions of the 90s, the Americans simply did not need it.

But this was not at all the last page in the history of US bomber strike operations in naval warfare. Another page is being written right now, during the rapidly growing confrontation between the US and China.

However, this topic deserves a separate consideration.

To be continued ...
Author:
Photos used:
US AirForce, avaitiongeekclub.com, Doug Aitken, Don Kohlenberger, US Navy
95 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Thrifty
    Thrifty 1 September 2020 05: 17
    30 th
    Timokhin surprised me, instead of an impartial review of an ode about what perfect military aircraft the United States had, and how they "playfully" twirled the whole world on one organ. ...
    1. Wwk7260
      Wwk7260 1 September 2020 06: 45
      19
      Well, the United States actually had the most advanced aviation in the world, and so it still remains, what should your objectivity be?
    2. timokhin-aa
      1 September 2020 08: 15
      23
      Well, this is not exactly what is written in the article, you saw something of your own in it.
    3. iouris
      iouris 1 September 2020 13: 36
      +8
      Quote: Thrifty
      udevil

      caught
      The material is solid and instructive.
  2. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 1 September 2020 06: 07
    10
    Yes, today Alexander has changed his role. I liked the article. I have not read before about the action of multi-engine in the fleet. So thanks for the new!
  3. Magic archer
    Magic archer 1 September 2020 06: 31
    18
    Gorgeous article. Photo B-52 for the first time I see flying so low over the water! Pilots are professionals. Another surprise was the concept of using Beshek as a missile carrier. 20 missiles !!! TWENTY, Karl !!! No missile defense system will dismiss such a horde. What is not a reason to equip the Bears the same way?
    1. timokhin-aa
      1 September 2020 08: 23
      +7
      Twenty is still potentially, but actually brought to twelve.

      We don't need to convert the Tu-95 into this, we have other opportunities, we need to deal with them, for example - https://topwar.ru/139900-o-neobhodimosti-vossozdaniya-morskoy-raketonosnoy-aviacii.html
      1. Fizik M
        Fizik M 1 September 2020 13: 35
        +4
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        we have other opportunities, we need to deal with them, for example

        more
        https://www.vpk-news.ru/articles/55595
        https://mina030.livejournal.com/17860.html

        The best carrier "Zircons" - the plane
        The golden bullet requires reconnaissance

        https://www.vpk-news.ru/articles/56044

        well, about the state of the Naval Aviation of the Navy in general -
        https://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2018-12-06/6_1025_sky.html
        1. timokhin-aa
          1 September 2020 13: 54
          0
          Well, this topic, as you yourself write, was covered, and the Su-30 is being purchased. Let the question be solved at least on it - the board is good, Onyx gets up there, even though there is one, Zircon also gets up, a set of equipment in order to "think like a pirate" can apparently also be entered. At least in a container.
          1. Fizik M
            Fizik M 1 September 2020 14: 46
            +3
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Well, this topic, as you write yourself, was covered,

            topic lost foundation
            at the firm ("Sukhoi") about Martirosov, literally:
            - Receiver no.
            Formally, someone will be appointed, of course ... But in conditions when the "fat paws of the Barrier" are reaching for the Su-34, this is a complete priest
            1. timokhin-aa
              1 September 2020 14: 50
              0
              Well, now let's wait as the "fat paws" show the delivery of the corvettes. Example 22350, as it were, hints that a new and expensive radar may be required to match real performance characteristics and TTZ.

              And someone may get sick in this case. And the fact that 20385 DOES NOT RENT, as it were, hints. Let's wait. I think that at least some of the command staff have an understanding that it will not work to delay the show of real results, and someone will have to take the extreme for everything. This can be a good incentive to improve the situation.
          2. mvg
            mvg 1 September 2020 23: 17
            +1
            Onyx gets up there, though alone

            Here's how it did not get up. And the "aviation" Brahmos-A is 500 kg lighter than usual. 2500 instead of 3000 kg.
            1. timokhin-aa
              1 September 2020 23: 40
              0
              Likewise, Onyx has the same difference in mass due to a different accelerator. In the aviation version, it is half a ton lighter.
              1. mvg
                mvg 2 September 2020 00: 25
                +2
                In the aviation version, it is half a ton lighter.

                But the fact is that we never hung it under the SU-27/30 and the Indians of 3-4 years suffered with Brahmos. Although the plans were to hang as many as 3 anti-ship missiles, as on the TU-22. As a result, Uranus, which is not good. We need a new anti-ship missile, in the weight category up to 2 tons, with warheads up to 250-300 kg
                1. timokhin-aa
                  2 September 2020 01: 25
                  0
                  Onyx tests with air launch were. Kits for modern Indian Su-30s were made by us. Brahmos flies.
                  I see no reason to fence in a garden - there is a rocket and there is an airplane, there is all the documentation and technology, and the positive experience of the Indians.
                  There is no need to invent anything, we will also save on the unification of missiles between aviation, NK, submarine and BRAV.
    2. bk0010
      bk0010 1 September 2020 21: 24
      +1
      Quote: Magic Archer
      What is not a reason to equip the Bears the same way?
      It is also pointless: you can't pick out the AUG with uranami, and it's not just the weight of the warhead, in order to reach the range of their use (130 km), the AUG air group will have to splash down first (after which the task will not be the most urgent).
      1. ZEMCH
        ZEMCH 12 September 2020 12: 16
        0
        Our scouts on the Su-24MR flew up to the AUG and flew over it. They came up to 50 m in height and were invisible to them.
  4. Postum
    Postum 1 September 2020 06: 40
    +7
    Well, now they will return to this, and Lancers are great for this, which carry 24 long-range anti-ship missiles. No wonder they renovated
    1. timokhin-aa
      1 September 2020 08: 15
      +8
      Yes, in the sequel will be about this.
    2. Hermit21
      Hermit21 2 September 2020 07: 45
      0
      Who are less than 10 left alive, because the glider is ushatan and is planned to be written off by 2025? Or are we talking about some other "Lancers"?
      1. timokhin-aa
        2 September 2020 17: 52
        0
        No, they are real, from the real world.
        1. Hermit21
          Hermit21 2 September 2020 22: 58
          0
          Oh well, ok. Then there is nothing to fear
          1. timokhin-aa
            3 September 2020 00: 05
            +1
            Where do you get information from? The Lancers, of course, were pretty good, but for example this year only 17 pieces are being written off, and those that will be written off are still flying, that is, the state of the aircraft, although on the verge, still allows you to use them for their intended purpose.
            The rest are planned to be replaced by "raiders" according to the board-to-board scheme.

            Your supposedly remaining 10 units are ousted from somewhere where decent people don't climb. However, after a stubborn rut with corvettes, it would be difficult to expect something normal from you.
            1. Hermit21
              Hermit21 3 September 2020 07: 34
              0
              Well, 17 is "and we haven't got there yet" (c).

              At the hearing, which also considered the question of approving the personnel transfer of the head of Strategic Command to the post of deputy chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States Armed Forces, Senator Mike Rounds from South Dakota indicated to the Air Force command that only 6 B-1 B aircraft out of 61 are currently able to carry combat duty in the Middle East and, on demand, perform assigned tasks in a given area.

              No one will adapt an aircraft to new weapons, which will be completely decommissioned in 5 years. Maybe a few boards for testing. And "Raider" needs to wait at least 10 years, and it's not a fact that the dates won't move to the right
              1. timokhin-aa
                3 September 2020 10: 45
                +1
                There is no need to read Russian-language sources - they are often written by figures like you. The senator cannot know the situation with airplanes better than those who use them. And it's the pilots who report to Congress, not the other way around.

                No one will adapt an aircraft to new armament, which will be completely decommissioned in 5 years.


                The 28th Air Wing has been flying these missiles for two years now. Everything is no longer just adapted, but will have time to grow old by 2025. In addition, if there are delays with the Raiders, the Lancers will go for the same life extension as the B-52, technically some of these aircraft can be repaired and fly for a long time, it just makes no sense yet - a new machine is on the way. But if it does not work out with a new one, then the Americans will simply invest in good repairs.
                1. Hermit21
                  Hermit21 3 September 2020 15: 12
                  0
                  Senator cannot know the situation with airplanes better than those who use them


                  He didn’t take these numbers from the ceiling, did he? And, all the more, I would not carry a gag in Congress. Surely the USAF reported to him. In addition, there is a breakdown of these 6 combat-ready by base, which hints at first-hand information.

                  In addition, if there are delays with the Raiders, the Lancers will go for the same life extension as the B-52; technically, some of these aircraft can be repaired and fly for a long time.


                  Probably a very small part, because restrictions are already imposed on operation, such as a ban on low-altitude flight, an annual flight of 300 flight hours, spare parts have not been produced for a long time, many of the aircraft in Davis Montana are already gutted, extending the resource requires very high costs. The operation of the B-1B is reduced to flying for training pilots and supporting pants and, possibly, some kind of exercises with minimal suspensions over the United States itself. And it is doubtful that Congress will agree to such a thing, since repair of "canned" with deep modernization will eat away a serious piece of the "Raider" program. So I'm very optimistic about 10 combat-ready Lancers by 2030
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    4 September 2020 19: 21
                    0
                    [quote] He didn't take these numbers from the ceiling, right? And, all the more, I would not carry a gag in Congress. [/ quote

                    In order to assert something exactly, an English sublinic is needed.

                    [quote] Probably a very small part, because restrictions are imposed on operation, such as a ban on low-altitude flight, an annual flight time of 300 flight hours [/ quote]

                    Well, that's enough. This is quite in conflict with the plans to change their board for board.
                    In any case, they will not remain without anti-ship missile carriers, I will reveal this issue in detail in the sequel, there, generally speaking, everything is not reduced to Lancer.
  5. Free wind
    Free wind 1 September 2020 06: 53
    0
    It seems there was a program on the star about the creation of accurate rockets. Well, the accuracy of bombing on a target the size of almost an aircraft carrier (some kind of tanker was used) from a height of 1 km, 1-2%, and this is for experienced pilots, and the guidance devices are better than during the war years.
    1. timokhin-aa
      1 September 2020 08: 18
      11
      In the SAC, regular exercises were held on the accuracy of bombing, up to the release of one bomb on a small target. There is complete order with accuracy, they miss only from a great height, well, there is pure physics + the absence of an optical sight. They will definitely not miss from a kilometer.
    2. Bez 310
      Bez 310 1 September 2020 10: 13
      +7
      At our test site, a transport vessel with a length of 137 meters was the target.
      We worked for this purpose from large aircraft - Tu-16, Tu-22m2 (3), with
      heights of 2000-4000 meters.
      I saw how the bomb entered the pipe of this ship. But in general, for the assessment
      "excellent", it was necessary to hit within a radius of 70-100 meters.
      1. timokhin-aa
        1 September 2020 10: 30
        +3
        In the pipe - class! Someone excelled, surpassed everyone!
        1. Bez 310
          Bez 310 1 September 2020 11: 01
          +6
          It is an accident.
          Our scopes are made with such "assumptions"
          that you can only hit the target by accident.
          1. timokhin-aa
            1 September 2020 11: 46
            +2
            With a salvo dropping of bombs, at least a couple, but it will hit.
            1. Bez 310
              Bez 310 1 September 2020 11: 53
              10
              Not necessarily.
              Once we (3 Tu-16s, 12 FAB-250s each) bombed
              on a raft measuring 4 by 6 meters. Bombed on command
              leading, series with min. interval. Not all were hit ...

              Here is a photo from that incident, my bombs are leaving.
              1. timokhin-aa
                1 September 2020 11: 55
                +4
                Great photo. You shouldn't have stopped writing, I can tell you.
                1. Bez 310
                  Bez 310 1 September 2020 11: 56
                  +4
                  It makes no sense.
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    1 September 2020 11: 57
                    +3
                    It makes sense and rather big
                    1. Bez 310
                      Bez 310 1 September 2020 11: 57
                      +1
                      Okay, let's not flood.
                  2. Fizik M
                    Fizik M 1 September 2020 13: 37
                    +6
                    Quote: Bez 310
                    It makes no sense.

                    Yes
                    "a drop hammers a stone"
                    especially when the fornicator rats from the OPK begin to cover the former flyers who found themselves at the "feeding trough"
                  3. SovAr238A
                    SovAr238A 1 September 2020 14: 36
                    10
                    Is.
                    Believe me, there are fewer and fewer people really interested, but they just wait ...

                    Not news about the unrealizable lack of analogues in the world.
                    And real insights, facts, analysis, forecasting.
                    1. Bez 310
                      Bez 310 1 September 2020 14: 46
                      13
                      Quote: SovAr238A
                      are waiting...
                      Not news about the unrealizable lack of analogues in the world.
                      And real admiration ...


                      Especially for you, from real memories.


                      All flights were standard, and not very interesting, and ordinary, but this flight was remembered by the fact that I was physically exhausted. But, first about the commander of the ship.

                      Many in MA know him, if not personally, then by his "exploits". It will be about Ivan Ivanovich D. He is famous for the fact that he could have been killed at least three times, but survived. The first time he fell from a great height was when he braked with the engine in order to maintain a place in the ranks. Well, he braked, and then, as in the textbook, a stall, during which one landing gear fell off the lock, as a result of which the plane acquired a strange configuration, and, consequently, a huge roll.

                      Bringing the plane back to its normal position, Ivan arranged a discussion in the crew - what to do, release the second strut, or remove the one that had fallen out. The discussion was interrupted by the plane itself, the second post also fell off the lock, as a result of which the plane came out of bank. We removed the landing gear, gained altitude, took a place in the ranks, and performed a normal flight. "Interesting moments" were not voiced, and they became known only thanks to a special department, which overheard drunken conversations in the hostel.

                      The second time Ivan could be killed during takeoff in Knevichi, when he did not control the refueling, and took off with the maximum rear centering. Well, and the third time, he simply made a night off-air landing, at a distance of 15 km from Knevichi, due to engine shutdown, due to the cessation of fuel supply to the engines. It all happened due to blown fuses, due to the heating of the fuse box, during the race for the leader.

                      It was with such an experienced pilot that I had to fly on an interesting mission. The task is not very difficult. The submarine launched a rocket. We had to find a hole in the ice from some step, and if the step did not break through the ice and remained on the surface, then it was necessary to bomb the step or ice with the available combat bombs. Allowed to fly at extremely low altitude to detect this stage. But in vain ...

                      As soon as we arrived in the area, Ivan dropped to a criminally low altitude, and began to drive around the area, grunting with delight, and shouting at me all sorts of ..., well, nonsense. I did not see the white light. In my blister, towards me, rushed a white ice haze, with rare cracks. I could not see anything, and I began to doubt the successful outcome of the flight. Somehow, under the pretext of restoring his orientation, he forced Ivan to gain 600 meters.

                      Having calmed down a little, I explained to Ivan that at a very low altitude, I could not see anything, and his “poking his finger” while piloting at this altitude did not add confidence in a bright future. We agreed that we would fly at an altitude of 600 meters for an hour, and then, regardless of the result, I, according to the remaining fuel, would give him the opportunity to take off.

                      Of course, as a normal pilot, Ivan could not stand the terms of our "agreement", and every five minutes, shouting "I see!" We did not find anything, 15 minutes before the "weekend" fuel remaining, I suggested that you can start to go crazy, and Ivan, an adult man, drove with childish delight at an extremely low altitude above the icy surface.

                      According to the KBP, over the sea, the extremely low altitude for the Tu-16 is 60 meters, but Ivan squeezed completely different readings from the plane and the crew. The matter was complicated by the fact that there are no breakers over the ice, and therefore Ivan fearlessly drove at such a height that his voice disappeared at the "stern". Somehow, having persuaded Ivan to fly home at a normal altitude, on the way back, I was wildly frozen, because my wet underwear began to dry through and through.

                      When I came home and went to bed, ice with occasional cracks flashed before my closed eyes for a very long time.
                      1. timokhin-aa
                        1 September 2020 14: 55
                        +6
                        laughing

                        Well, talk in vain! Now you can write a good article that special departments should delve more thoroughly into the compliance of the flight crew with the requirements of the guidelines, otherwise it will as then. laughing

                        "On the existing capabilities of special departments in terms of maintaining the combat readiness of units and formations of the Navy."

                        Seriously, at least put the text about the search for an aircraft carrier back on the Internet. He used to be on Zen, but you apparently slapped him.

                        That thing was very useful for society.
                  4. Ingenegr
                    Ingenegr 1 September 2020 16: 35
                    +2
                    Quote: Bez 310
                    It makes no sense.

                    Be so kind as to explain your position, please. As far as I understand, you have considerable practical experience, which is very interesting.
                    1. Bez 310
                      Bez 310 1 September 2020 16: 52
                      +3
                      Yes, I have some experience in MPA and PLA,
                      but I don't see anything very interesting in this.
                      I used to talk about some of my
                      service, then considered this occupation useless.
                      This is the position it really is, but mine ...
              2. Fizik M
                Fizik M 1 September 2020 13: 36
                +2
                Quote: Bez 310
                Here is a photo from that incident, my bombs are leaving.

                it's certainly not my thing, but you should change your ava
                I understand your sarcasm to a lot, but nevertheless ...
                1. Bez 310
                  Bez 310 1 September 2020 14: 12
                  0
                  Don't attach too much importance.
                  It's all nonsense ...
  6. rocket757
    rocket757 1 September 2020 07: 04
    +5
    Good article, real review, albeit past events!
    1. timokhin-aa
      1 September 2020 08: 19
      12
      I wanted to give a different perspective. They were really preparing to fight with us there.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 1 September 2020 08: 34
        +5
        I know. I’m from those times when the finger on the course, on the button, was held for a reason ... it happened and pressed, only in the newspapers they did not write about it ... they did not write, in general, and we were not there!
        You know, people have different souvenirs, talismans. You find them yourself, it happens and goes by inheritance. Our family has two of them and both are with the same label, only the numbers are different, from different generations.
      2. Free wind
        Free wind 1 September 2020 10: 40
        -1
        Well, ours, too, were not going to treat them to dumplings. But they kept more or less safe distances. Especially airplanes, with an alleged patriotism, the consequences could be bad. In the seventies, there was still a decline in tension.
        1. timokhin-aa
          1 September 2020 10: 44
          +2
          The Americans used this recession to prepare for a new escalation in the 80s.
        2. Fizik M
          Fizik M 1 September 2020 13: 40
          +4
          Quote: Free Wind
          Well, ours, too, were not going to treat them to dumplings.

          Was there an effective solution to this problem? Yes, it consisted in the creation of a "long-range missile arm" - long-range anti-ship missiles for arming ships, submarines and naval missile-carrying aviation (MRA). At the same time, most of the anti-ship missiles were placed on aircraft carriers, capable of making an inter-theater maneuver in the shortest possible time.
          The main problem of the Navy was not "the absence of an aircraft carrier", but the need for "aviationization of the Navy" - giving the command the ability to "think, see the situation like an aircraft" and ensuring close fire and information interaction between ships, submarines and aviation. In many matters, naval aviation “rode” from the fleet in an “unfastened carriage”, which is actually a “special case” of the Navy's control problems. Here is just one example.
          One of the "pillars of anti-aircraft tactics" was the formation of a single strike with the binding of the actions of the forces to a single time "H" (the time of the approach of the anti-aircraft missile system to the target). At the same time, a real joint strike of NK, submarine and MPA with reference to the "Ch" was impossible for a fundamental reason - the anti-ship missiles that were on the NK and submarines had a target lock on the trajectory, and the anti-ship missiles MPA - on the aircraft suspension (that is, the real time of launching the anti-ship missile MRA was determined by the noise-signal environment). This circumstance not only did not deny the need for close interaction between the NK and submarines of the Navy with the MRA, but also directly demanded this. But on the basis of principles other than the link to "H".

          Of course, MPA and NK and PL had their own advantages and disadvantages, which largely overlapped each other. Thus, it was necessary to ensure interaction between them - "informational" and "tactical". Alas, this was not realized by all "natives of the ships", who sometimes demanded from the pilots what they obviously could not give.

          https://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2015-01-16/1_myths.html
      3. Undecim
        Undecim 1 September 2020 14: 05
        +1
        They were really preparing to fight with us there.
        Is it possible to prepare to fight not really, theoretically?
        1. Free wind
          Free wind 1 September 2020 14: 24
          +6
          Theoretically, everything is possible, only today there are theoretically 10 breakthroughs and victories on VO, but in reality where are we.
        2. Fizik M
          Fizik M 1 September 2020 14: 43
          +5
          Quote: Undecim
          Is it possible to prepare to fight not really, theoretically?

          can
          for example
          The mine-sweeping group of the Kola flotilla of heterogeneous forces worked on the demining of the fairway in the Barents Sea during the exercises. This was announced on Wednesday, March 28, at the press service of the Northern Fleet.
          wassat
          fool
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 1 September 2020 14: 47
            0
            Are you offering to set up a real minefield and train on it?
            1. timokhin-aa
              1 September 2020 16: 00
              +6
              He is banned again. But I will be responsible for it - it is necessary to set up real simulators of mines, at least mass and size, and really look for them, and work out their destruction with the same methods that can be done in a real combat situation and without almost one hundred percent risk of undermining the minesweeper at the very first mine.
              1. Undecim
                Undecim 1 September 2020 16: 16
                -2
                He is banned again
                Blown up?
                1. timokhin-aa
                  1 September 2020 16: 17
                  +3
                  Why be so naughty?
                  1. Undecim
                    Undecim 1 September 2020 16: 21
                    0
                    Why just flirt? Just kidding. I was banned forever exactly ten times.
              2. SovAr238A
                SovAr238A 1 September 2020 16: 28
                +6
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                He is banned again.

                Are they complaining about him?
                And what for?

                In my life I didn’t understand how to complain about someone’s real examples and someone’s real experience ...

                Or there are so many rough-tongued people on Topvar, ready, like Tabaki, to lick someone's ass, not necessarily Sherkhan, just lick, suddenly they will notice and let the bones be absorbed ...
                1. timokhin-aa
                  1 September 2020 16: 32
                  +5
                  Max doesn't always hold back. Someone pressed the "complaint" button, that's all.
                  1. SovAr238A
                    SovAr238A 1 September 2020 18: 01
                    +1
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    Max doesn't always hold back. Someone pressed the "complaint" button, that's all.

                    Well, this is not an automatic action ...
                    Someone, like an administrator, should consider the complaints on the merits ...
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. DWG1905
    DWG1905 1 September 2020 08: 29
    -1
    The last photo is not a B-52. This is most likely Poseidon. We're so far away. Not because we cannot do it, but because of the stupidity of the administrative apparatus. And the commentator has already managed to delete the photo in the commentary, but all the same, the materiel of the potential enemy must be taught.
    1. Bez 310
      Bez 310 1 September 2020 10: 16
      +1
      Quote: DWG1905
      This is most likely Poseidon. We're so far away. Not for a reason that we cannot do ...

      And for this reason too, unfortunately.
      So far we have not seen a "breakthrough" in aviation anti-submarine warfare.
      1. timokhin-aa
        1 September 2020 10: 36
        +2
        There is a possibility of a breakthrough. Even if not to the same level as that of the Americans or the Japanese. It's just that no one moves.
  9. sergo1914
    sergo1914 1 September 2020 08: 53
    +6
    ... AW Ranger: Tell me where you are.
    B-52: We're five miles from you.
    AV Ranger: We do not observe you visually.
    B-52: Look down.


    Yeah. The pilot is a crazy devil. There were times. And there were People. And on that and on the other hand. It's good that we didn't grab.
    1. Bez 310
      Bez 310 1 September 2020 10: 51
      11
      On our ships of the BOD type, the name is written on the stern.
      We were given the task (On Tu-16) - to bring a photo of the name.
      We brought it. In general, over the sea, the minimum height
      the flight was determined according to the report "Commander, the blister is already filling in ...".
  10. stoqn477
    stoqn477 1 September 2020 10: 04
    0
    Very interesting.
  11. Bez 310
    Bez 310 1 September 2020 10: 08
    +2
    Very interesting article!
    1. Fizik M
      Fizik M 1 September 2020 11: 06
      +3
      Quote: Bez 310
      Very interesting article!

      extremely interesting flights on PMV were practiced by the crews of our Tu-16, both in the north and in the Pacific Fleet
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 1 September 2020 11: 19
        +4
        Well, yes, everything happened ...
      2. timokhin-aa
        1 September 2020 11: 37
        +2
        Yes, and Tu-22M flew on ultra-low radio altimeter and not only sea ones. But here - B-52 ...
  12. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 1 September 2020 10: 50
    +6
    But the attempt to use multi-engine bombers to attack surface ships was unsuccessful. The bombers sank several transports and damaged a few minor warships.

    It was just that the successful application of the multi-engine on ships was in conflict with survival. For a successful strike, it was necessary to climb to low heights, at which these colossus were an excellent target. Plus, the early "fortresses" had extremely weak weapons in the bow sector, so they had practically nothing to crush the ship's air defense in such an attack.
    Nevertheless, in some places the TO managed to drive the B-17 to low altitudes. It all started with the fact that Lieutenant General George Kenney, who commanded the 5th Air Force, got acquainted with the results of the traditional for "fortresses" bombing from high altitudes - 1% hits. After that, he decided that the B-17 should work as a masthead.
    In practice, this theory was embodied by the 63rd Squadron. Captain Kenneth McCullar, who served in it, in his B-17 in five passes drowned 113-kg with EM bombs Hayashio... However, after that his "fortress" with two knocked out engines and a bunch of wounded barely crossed the mountains and reached the base.
  13. Fizik M
    Fizik M 1 September 2020 11: 05
    +4
    Quote: Postum
    Well, now they will return to this, and Lancers are great for this, which carry 24 long-range anti-ship missiles. No wonder they renovated

    and which have the ability to "compress" the time range of the salvo to a few seconds
    with all the consequences
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 1 September 2020 16: 40
      +3
      Quote: Fizik M
      and which have the ability to "compress" the time range of the salvo to a few seconds
      with all the consequences

      Taking into account the altitude of the "Harpoons", for air defense based on the air defense missile system, such a volley is extremely bad. When the anti-ship missiles come out of the radio horizon, the DD air defense systems will be able, at best, to work out 3-4 "capture-launch-defeat-search for a new target" cycle on them. And then everything - the only hope for "daggers" and "blowtorches".
  14. Alien From
    Alien From 1 September 2020 11: 20
    0
    Thanks to the author, it's interesting to read!)
  15. merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet 1 September 2020 11: 39
    +2
    I'm wondering, Soviet bombers could fly for a long time at low and ultra-low altitudes, the same 3M / M4 and Tu-95, the main workhorses of the DA. At the expense of the Tu-22M3 it has many restrictions and only during the day, Commander-in-Chief Deinekin himself wrote. -160 still has many restrictions on low-altitude flights and other modes, it was written in Rigmant's book that, due to the dashing 90s, the car was not completed.
    And the last, in the journal Aviation and Cosmonautics, an excellent section entitled "Enemy number one" S. Moroz about the B-52, learned a lot and new about this unique USS SAC ship.
  16. Fizik M
    Fizik M 1 September 2020 13: 41
    +4
    Quote: merkava-2bet
    Into the account of Tu-22M3

    about M3 - HZ
    but "shilo" (Tu-22) went to PMV very well
    which is why they were often recruited for surprise checks of the country's air defense
    1. timokhin-aa
      1 September 2020 13: 59
      +1
      Iraqis on them distinguished themselves in such flights
    2. merkava-2bet
      merkava-2bet 1 September 2020 21: 18
      0
      According to the idea, the Tu-95 should also work on a PMV, its design with a margin, unlike the 3M / M4 with their flexible wing, optimized for high-altitude flights.
      1. timokhin-aa
        1 September 2020 22: 34
        +1
        Not a fact, the load on the wing there is much higher than that of the B-52. In general, in the 60s, these aircraft were practiced at low altitudes, but "small" - hundreds of meters. Structurally, the Tu-95 is not intended for this.
        The Tu-160 can potentially be modified, but it is very expensive. We have tried too hard with this aircraft, as well as with PAK DA now they are overdone.
    3. merkava-2bet
      merkava-2bet 1 September 2020 21: 28
      +2
      At the expense of the Tu-22M3, Deinekin himself flew on it in PMV, but in manual mode and during the day at a short range, it is very difficult and dangerous, the board did not have a full-fledged terrain enveloping system, maybe now they will put on the Tu-22M3M, and in general, the flight on PMV strongly knocks out the airframe's resource, heavy loads, and on Soviet machines it was always less, for example, the B-52 had a keel blown off during a flight test on PMV, there is a film on YouTube.
      1. timokhin-aa
        1 September 2020 22: 36
        0
        Deinekin flew on a radio altimeter, as I understand it, over the sea, but very low - 40-60 meters.
    4. Vale-90
      Vale-90 16 November 2020 20: 07
      -1
      And the Tu-16 "went" ... There were no others. It is very difficult to maintain the flight profile at 100 m. It has its own peculiarities - in trimming, in "tendencies for a set.
  17. exo
    exo 1 September 2020 17: 30
    0
    Gorgeous photos and a great start to the article!
  18. nechipor2010
    nechipor2010 1 September 2020 17: 32
    +2
    where did the print button go? I've always saved interesting articles before, but it's not good with advertising garbage. it is clear that you need to earn money, but I would like ...
    1. merkava-2bet
      merkava-2bet 1 September 2020 21: 13
      +3
      I wrote to the admin, he said he would think about the button.
  19. Pavel57
    Pavel57 2 September 2020 12: 07
    0
    An interesting article with data on alongside Harpoons for hitting various targets in various situations.
  20. Pavel57
    Pavel57 2 September 2020 12: 09
    +1
    Quote: Fizik M
    PMV was practiced by the crews of our Tu-16,

    One caught the water while flying over an aircraft carrier.
    1. timokhin-aa
      2 September 2020 19: 10
      0
      It is not known exactly what happened there, if you mean Pliev's crew. The only facts are that the plane crashed and the crew died.
      1. Pavel57
        Pavel57 3 September 2020 09: 35
        0
        There is a video, although the moment of the fall was not included in it.
        1. timokhin-aa
          3 September 2020 10: 46
          0
          What we are talking about - it is only clear that the plane crashed.
  21. Vale-90
    Vale-90 16 November 2020 20: 04
    -1
    There were no aircraft carriers in the USSR. And in the Russian Federation, no.
  22. xomaNN
    xomaNN 25 November 2020 20: 13
    0
    Useful material about the unexpected. Usually our regiment Tu 16 on their AB laughing