Matrix Games Forums

https://github.com/PygmalionOfCyprus/cm ... ssues/1485

Has anyone looked into this since the tracker says it's an open issue? This goes back a year and related to the under ranged Tu-95. Thanks.

PS: the author put a lot of research into the solution i.e. adjustments to be made. Even they are off a bit, using them would be an improvement.

DO you need someone to validate his datasources?

No, he documented everything to the nth degree. Pretty comprehensive. Enough for the developers to go with. Think as always it is a matter of priorities.

Hey guys,

I just wanted to let you know that my corrections I suggested for the Tu-95s have been implemented in DB 503 that came with the most recent update.

You might notice that the range for the Tu-95s still looks low (2295 nautical miles) in the loadouts, but this isn't actually the case. The loadout description in the DB doesn't seem to have been corrected. Once the aircraft get to high altitude and cruising speed their range expands up to some 3,500 nautical miles or so, which is enough to hit most of CONUS when deployed from the forward staging bases in Siberia. I still haven't tested whether they have enough range to hit the US from the forward deployment bases in the Arctic around the Kola peninsula. Historically, Soviet strategic bombers were expected to fly all the way around Norway so that might put constraints on their range.

But at least when trying to make a scenario in the guise of Wargasm or Detect, Deter, and Defend, they should work now.

Big thanks to the DB managers for their hard work!

I would also like to give thanks and will look into the adjustments later tonight.

Kevin

SunlitZelkova wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 10:37 am(...)
You might notice that the range for the Tu-95s still looks low (2295 nautical miles) in the loadouts, but this isn't actually the case. The loadout description in the DB doesn't seem to have been corrected. (...)

Once in flight, it matches the range I've documented: "with a 20 ton payload : 6 500 km aka 3510 nm."

Shouldn't a 6 Kh15 loadout be a 9 ton payload though? If so, it should have a 10 500 km aka 5670 nm range, as documented.

The max endurance might be still too long. Cf. https://github.com/PygmalionOfCyprus/cm ... 1785648025


Also shouldn't the Loadout range mentioned in the DB Viewer match the operational?

Even if the DataLoadout.DefaultMissionProfile field is informative. (Is it?) Maybe it is because the loadout mission profile includes a 10% reserve.

When the tu-95 bear flew down the east coast USA during the cold war, did carry any payload? Or just a show of force or perhaps recon?

kevinkins wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 6:49 pm When the tu-95 bear flew down the east coast USA during the cold war, did carry any payload? Or just a show of force or perhaps recon?

No. The only time operational Tu-95s were armed with live weapons outside of testing operations was during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the bombers were all deployed to the forward airfields and sat armed on the tarmac on alert.

The reason for this is that the Soviet government was concerned about positive control issues, not only to prevent accidental attacks on the US but also in case some disgruntled pilot and his crew decided to get revenge against the Communist Party.

It would not be until 2015 or so when Russia intervened in Syria that Tu-95s were armed and flew missions.

Could you provide a reference for that?

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/t ... ssile-base

I might be wrong, but I do remember the Bear being a threat to my house in NJ.

What was the goal of Nike sites? Shoot down sea birds?

Kevin

I found this, of possible interest.

https://time.com/3970402/russian-bomber ... rry-nukes/


In the Russian wikipedia article there is a list of accidents, and it is not short, 26 in the CW and 5 in Putin's era.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%83-95


Without source, it is also said (google translation).

For decades, Tu-95s have been on combat duty and patrolled along the borders of NATO countries. In Soviet and Russian aviation, during patrols or other types of flights into international airspace, there were never nuclear weapons on board aircraft (and not only Tu-95). The only time special ammunition was suspended on planes was during the Cuban Missile Crisis , and ship commanders received packages with encryption codes, but the confrontation between the USA and the USSR was resolved peacefully and there were no sorties.

kevinkins wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 6:23 pm Could you provide a reference for that?

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/t ... ssile-base

I might be wrong, but I do remember the Bear being a threat to my house in NJ.

What was the goal of Nike sites? Shoot down sea birds?

Kevin

The information about Tu-95s not being operationally armed between 1962-2015 is probably a Post-Cold War I revelation, meaning that the US DOD would not have known (at least definitively) that the Bears after Oct. 1962 were no longer a threat to CONUS.

Realistically of course, any manned bomber attack on CONUS from the former USSR would come over the North Pole, meaning the main defense lines would naturally be in Canada, though possible strikes could hit the Pacific NW from Kamchatka.

Setting up SAM sites in places like NJ were probably for a couple reasons:

1) Redundancy/"just being safe" in case the Soviet bombers pulled of a raid from an unexpected direction, possibly as part of the 50s-60s thinking that SAMs could replace fighters in the strategic defense role (the thinking that killed the Avro Arrow).

2) Political reasons, I.e. setting up defenses in one state and not another would put pressure on the latter state's representatives to get the DOD to defend them too, regardless of actual threat.

There's a number of CW1 instances of one side or the other completely misunderstanding/not-being-aware of the other side's capabilties/intentions, and spending alot of money to counter a threat that wasn't there. Just look at the Missile/Bomber "Gaps" of the late 50s/Early 60s, and the fact that the F-15 was built in a panic over fears of the Foxbat, which turned out to be really unfounded. At least the US got a premium fighter out of it!

Realistically, except for hypothetical aircraft operating out of Cuba, NJ was probably not under threat from manned bombers. It was ballistic and cruise missiles that would have threatened the Garden State

As for sources,

it was perceived as a threat, and responded to accordingly :
Washingtonpost.com: Russian Flight Shocks West (1999)

Until the wee hours of Friday morning, it had been 11 years since any U.S. pilot had eyeballed a Bear or a Blackjack in friendly airspace.
(...)Russian news agencies reported that the planes were on a 15-hour flight that took them across the North Pole. Col. Alexander Drobyshevsky was quoted by the ITAR-Tass news agency as saying the planes fired cruise missiles and hit targets in southern Russia. U.S. defense officials said the planes were not armed with active missiles.

Soviets intercepted off Florida coast - UPI Archives (1990)

The latest incident took place Tuesday, when two Soviet TU-95 Bear reconnaissance bombers were seen just off the coast, flying within 90 miles of U.S. air space.

Officials for the 125th Fighter Group based at Jacksonville International Airport said the incidents are the first since March 1988.
(...)Capt. Jeanette Booth, intelligence officer for the group, said Soviet Bears were spotted Feb. 9, Feb. 13, Friday and Tuesday, and have been observed from Virginia to central Florida.
(...)The Florida Air Guard observed Soviet Bears dropping sonar buoys 300 miles off the Florida coast in 1987, and in 1982 the bombers were seen snooping around during the sea trials of the USS Vinson, an aircraft carrier being tested 42 miles off the coast of Jacksonville.

The Recce Bears observed of Florida probably were based off Cuba (and Cape Verde, Guinea, Angola)

• "Strategists" are sent to Cuba https://nvo.ng.ru/concepts/2008-07-25/13_kuba.html
• "Our strategic aviation on the Cape Verde Islands - what was that?" https://forums.airbase.ru/2008/07/t6277 ... l#p1610204
  (enjoy the heated arguing, not unfamiliar to any forum worldwide. The human nature being what it is)
• "Aviatsiya magazine No. 9 (No. 1/2001)" gives interesting interpretations of the Russian long-range bombers exercises
  https://coollib.com/b/219222/read
  (You'll notice known names such as Efim Gordon, Dmitry Komissarov)
  And in relation to the topic, "Tupolev naval reconnaissance aircraft" by Anatoly Artemyev. It mentions a lot of fascinating operational details.
  (I need a way to just plug my brain into such sources and just output scenarios and DB requests )
• Picture of a Tu-95 at Cuba
  https://forums.airbase.ru/2021/09/t5804 ... l#p9336157

PS: nice article on "Bear watch" QRA aboard CV transiting the Atlantic from the Med.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-spac ... 180953363/

For about an hour that day, we weren’t Cold War enemies—just airmen enjoying the shared good fortune of flying some pretty awesome aircraft.

All I know is that USA spent a lot tax money on Nike sites and it had a lot to do with defending against the Bear. Not sea gulls.

Happy Thanksgiving to All.

Kevin

Happy holidays guys!

kevinkins wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 6:23 pm Could you provide a reference for that?

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/t ... ssile-base

I might be wrong, but I do remember the Bear being a threat to my house in NJ.

What was the goal of Nike sites? Shoot down sea birds?

Kevin

Famous Russian Aircraft: Tupolev Tu-95 by Yefim Gordon & Dmitry Komissarov.

In the event of a nuclear war the Tu-95 would be armed, but the Soviets did not continuously load their aircraft with bombs on alert like the USAF did, nor did they ever fly armed Chrome Dome style patrols.

Nike sites in New Jersey and elsewhere were the last in a long line of defences. The existence of a SAM site is not evidence the Bears were armed when they flew in penny packets to scare NORAD from time to time.