Is the Backfire still a credible threat to Atlantic shipping in 2026 AD?
They still have backfires?
>>65212879Some.
>>65212874Not particularly.
>>65212894I ask because I just finished reading all of Red Storm Rising™. Tom Clancy jerks off the Backfire so much in that book.
In the sense of "Russia has not degraded so far that shooting a missile at an unsuspecting civilian cargo vessel is beyond them"? Sure.In the sense that under current diplomatic circumstances there'd be any possibility they do that? No.In the sense that, in the event of a Russia vs. NATO war (regardless of US involvement), that Russia could operate Backfires in the Atlantic? Lmao no.
>>65212901>In the sense that, in the event of a Russia vs. NATO war (regardless of US involvement), that Russia could operate Backfires in the Atlantic? Lmao no.My hunch is that the RuAF wouldn't even be able to keep their strategic bases on the Kola Peninsula open in a hot war. The Norwegian, Swedish, and Finnish Air Forces would rape them.
>>65212874The guidance packages for the big missiles they carry were never leaked to the west unlike the s300 and as17Ukraine dismantled all their stock because they were nuclear capable so they weren't able to sell it to the united statesGiven all the comprehensive intelligence infrastructure that exists specifically to watch these bombers, I don't think they have much of a chanceregardless, olenya would be wiped off the map very early in a conflict with the civilized world and Scandinavia
>>65212946>The guidance packages for the big missiles they carry were never leaked to the west unlike the s300 and as17As far as we know...
>>65212955I don't think so. They are taking them too seriously for that to be a consideration. Why would you build more and more expensive interceptors for this exact kind of missile if you can just change the jamming frequency on your existing interceptors? There's too much money involved.
>>65212968>Why would you build more and more expensive interceptors for this exact kind of missileWho is doing this? What interceptors?
>>65212898Well that was inn the 80s, and he had to consntruct a scenanrio where the Soviets overrun Iceland and northern Norway.Today. . .welll, if they can launch one of those bigass missiles, it will wreck the ship it hits.If they can find the target.If they can get in range.
>>65212995@grok
>>65212874The capabilities of the aircraft don't matter if the targeting information is out of date and the decision to execute on that information is done under a false pretense of competency.
>>65213202NTA but the Backfire's own radar should be able to find targets out to 200 km or so
>>65212901>theoretically attacking civilian cargo ships, russia: >:(>actually attacking civilian cargo ships, ukraine: :)
>>65212874With what? Kh-32s? How many of those do they even have? Do you know how ancient their seekers are and how trivial it is to disrupt their guidance?Hell, how are they even going to get eyes up for the initial shoot, much less the midcourse correction when they can't even make it through the GIUK Gap in peacetime?
>>65212874>Vampire! vampire! vampire!
>>65212874Aside from all other factors anons have presented, Kh-22 stocks appear to have been entirely expended in minute-of-city-block terror attacks on Ukranian ground targets (ancient seeker locks the largest building aka apartment bloc), with evidence that successor Kh-32s are being fired as the come off the production line. What are they going to do with nonexistant magazine depth, toss FAB-3000s at us? Even Warthunder's biases don't give that strategy a snowball's chance in hell.
>>65214113Crying about globally sanctioned tankers getting blown up by the nation you've been failing to conquer for the last half decade won't bring fuel back to Crimea>fucks up the greentextGod ziggers are pathetic
>>65214113Funny isn't it? Russia likes to crow about casting down the "rules based international order", yet Russia is powerless to resist when the West abandons those rules.
>>65214965People forget that the rules exist because enough places with enough collective power decided they didn't like what happened when there weren't any and that it was better for everyone to show some restraint, not because they're the only way anyone can fight or win.It is specifically the power of western allies that makes them rules and not suggestions.
>>65212898Well back in the soviet days their airforce was actually pretty good with solid designs. But that's over 40 years ago by now and they really haven't kept up in the technological development. Also the western military had a tendency to believe the inflated numbers that soviet provided for their aircrafts and munition so they thought they were a lot more dangerous than they were.It was the same thing just 10 years ago when i was in the army and they were freaking out a bout how russian rocket artillery could outrange ours but when we saw it in action they didn't perform as expected and were brutally outperformed by HIMARS etc for accuracy and speed despite a longer theoretical range.
>>65212874>Is the Backfire still a credible threat to Atlantic shipping in 2026 AD?Yes, cargo ships are susceptible to everything. Next question.
>>65216940Classic.
>>65212874probably not but they are fucking kino looking
>>65214965>Russia is powerless to resist when the West abandons those rules.what west? Ukraine is the one attacking cargo ships. 20% of their territory was confiscated as punishment
>>65223682It must be really difficult to go through life not being able to tell cause and effect apart
>>65223682majority of that "confiscated" in 2014/15. what ships did it attack back then?
>>65216952>Yes, cargo ships are susceptible to everything. Next question.That's not the question though. Threatening cargo ships in the Atlantic with a Backfire also needs a targetting chain to get the backfire onto the target, basing close enough to sortie there, and maintenance enough to generate a sortie rate that rises above nuisance value to the level of credibility.So are they still a credible threat, Mr Smartypants?
>>65216940It's fucking amazing that one of the crew survived that
>>65212874anything could be a credible threat to civilian shipping anon
>>65212874>still a credible threatWas it ever, really? I mean, Breshnev's USSR was a credible threat. Sadly down hill after that. Andropov got dropped off. Yeltsin was a joke. Gorbachev was herding cats from the corpse of the Union as it died. He did all he could to maintain Russia as a State, and that's ALL he could do. He almost lost his head over it. They can still get airborn, the threat is they fall out of the sky onto someone.
>>65216940>russian FFA accident investiation>da, it crashed
>>65212874To sink a single random civilian ship in the North Atlantic as a propaganda move designed entirely to make Putins balls feel big and give him something to boast about on TV? Sure, probably, assuming that everything goes perfectly for them and no NATO air force or navy decides to stop them. In terms of setting up a rotating and sustainable 'aerial blockade' to completely shut down shipping in the North Atlantic? Hahahahaha. No.
>>65212874It's a rustbucket
>>65214935incredible shot
>>65216940
