History, Politics And Current Affairs

“What a mistake to make.” He muttered. “Are the M60s ready to go?”

Bertorelli isn't reporting to a General Erich von Klinkerhoffen, by any chance?

There are no issues with stolen large-breasted paintings either?

Cihatari wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 3:51 pm
Bertorelli isn't reporting to a General Erich von Klinkerhoffen, by any chance?

Ore General Leopold Von Flockenstuffen.

Hopefully Bertorelli has as impressive an array of medals as his grandfather:

"The first row are for service in Abyssinia. The second row are for service in North Africa".
“And the last row?”
"They are for servicing Fiats!"



My favourite TLW chapters are when we really get to go around the world, and that has been done here.

The prospect of some sort of threat getting loose in the air bridges is something of a nightmare scenario for Allied planners, as defensive measures and escorts are prohibitively costly in all senses of the word. Kind of the point of the Sovs doing it.

How long would it take to turn a B-1 into a B-R?

What the order of battle of Trieste Defence Command?

Jotun wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 5:23 pm How long would it take to turn a B-1 into a B-R?

The B-1 using a variation of the F-16 radar. I don't know if it has the air to air mode or it's wired for AIM-120.

Modifying a B-1B to B-1R is a major rebuild. I'd WAG it at a year.

Jotun wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 5:23 pm How long would it take to turn a B-1 into a B-R?

B-1B => B-1R? Years. New engine, new engine nacelles, new radar, systems integration, flight test program. You get the idea.

Hang an AIM-120 or AIM-152? We're still looking at adding an A2A fire-control mode for the APQ-164 that goes beyond the "find the tanker" mode, weapons integration, separation testing. Yea, the APQ-164 is an APG-66/68 derivative and has some parts commonality, but they are very different radars from what I understand.

Whatever the Soviets are using, it seems to be implied that they were working on it pre-war, then ran a month long crash program to get it into the fight.

B1-B tp B1-R.. expensive and difficult. Also utterly unnecessary: why do you want a supersonic swing-wing?? if you want a VLR loitering escort, go big and primitive, my friend. No B-47's left so use B-52, which has been used as a testbed for all sorts of things and which is a thoroughly understood airframe.

Add Hughes AN/APG-71 radar to the nose in a chin mount (long since done) as that system can already handle AIM-54 and AIM-120 and the thing already has wiring loom paths to plumb pylons (if not the correct loom). It'll even give the radar return of a B-747....

Or just rustle F-14's from the boneyard , add all the tanks you can and shuttle. In the Pacific, Japan-Midway-Hawaii for example. They won't be on burner very much, just lolloping along at airliner speeds.

That's a job of weeks.

Remember just how fast some of the F-4 variant appeared in the 60s under wartime pressure.

Cheers: Mark

drmarkbailey wrote: ↑Tue Aug 19, 2025 7:35 am B1-B tp B1-R.. expensive and difficult. Also utterly unnecessary: why do you want a supersonic swing-wing?? if you want a VLR loitering escort, go big and primitive, my friend. No B-47's left so use B-52, which has been used as a testbed for all sorts of things and which is a thoroughly understood airframe.

Add Hughes AN/APG-71 radar to the nose in a chin mount (long since done) as that system can already handle AIM-54 and AIM-120 and the thing already has wiring loom paths to plumb pylons (if not the correct loom). It'll even give the radar return of a B-747....

Or just rustle F-14's from the boneyard , add all the tanks you can and shuttle. In the Pacific, Japan-Midway-Hawaii for example. They won't be on burner very much, just lolloping along at airliner speeds.

That's a job of weeks.

Remember just how fast some of the F-4 variant appeared in the 60s under wartime pressure.

Cheers: Mark

I know next to nothing about the subject matter, hence my questions. Thank you for this. So in essence it would be the Old Dog if the USAF really sends up a B-52 as an AAM platform

drmarkbailey wrote: ↑Tue Aug 19, 2025 7:35 amAdd Hughes AN/APG-71 radar to the nose in a chin mount (long since done) as that system can already handle AIM-54 and AIM-120 and the thing already has wiring loom paths to plumb pylons (if not the correct loom). It'll even give the radar return of a B-747....

Or just rustle F-14's from the boneyard , add all the tanks you can and shuttle. In the Pacific, Japan-Midway-Hawaii for example. They won't be on burner very much, just lolloping along at airliner speeds.

I've roughly tracked conventional B-52J losses. Getting SAC to part with any B-52s will be tricky. I worked out the numbers somewhere, and there probably aren't many B-52Gs in AMARC. And bringing a B-52 back from the boneyard isn't fast based on @ examples.

I've dug into probable AMARC numbers for a number of airframes. I'm far from certain there are any usable F-14s at AMARC in TLWverse 2005. But that's another conversation.

Having said that, in @, US Customs has some P-3s that they stuck APG-66s in. Honestly, it's probably easier to wrangle old P-3s, grab some APG-71s and wire an F-14D backseat into a P-3. A P-3 gets you good loiter time without the need for tanker support.
Now a small caveat to the above. Apparently the APG-71 system had a greater theoretical range, but was practically limited by antenna size. If whatever the Soviets used is a big airframe, we can't discount that they stuck a larger antenna on the Flash Dance to get a much greater range.

Or use existing two seater fighters with tanker support. It will virtually attrit fighters and tankers, but that’s your fastest response.

SAC is probably more amenable to making Sov airfields go away through excessive use of high explosives than the more defensive minded long range escorts.

But honestly, the Air Bridge got sloppy and complacent, and paid for it in blood.

Johnnie Lyle wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:16 am Or use existing two seater fighters with tanker support. It will virtually attrit fighters and tankers, but that’s your fastest response.

Those don't exactly grow in trees. But, the consolidated survivors of the Unites States' two F-14D squadrons do form a squadron(-) in Alaska. Short term, they ride shotgun to a limited extent while the somebody comes up with a hunting plan.

But honestly, the Air Bridge got sloppy and complacent, and paid for it in blood.

In this instance, I don't agree that they got sloppy and complacent.
I went into GoogleEarth and placed the MiG-31's supersonic combat radius (~750km) and subsonic combat radius (~1,400km) from a few far eastern Soviet air bases. Then I placed three great circle paths to Yokota AB - from McChord AFB, WA; Travis AFB, CA; and Hickam AFB, HI.

To stay outside the 1,400km ring of a known threat, the air bridge was already running pretty far south. And that's before 16th Air Army caught NATO by surprise with those R-37s about a day back.

The Soviets used something big, with a lot of range - enough range to go hunting far into the North Pacific. So they either built a brand new aircraft without NATO intelligence getting wind of it, or they were able to hide it in plain sight. If it's what I think it is, and what I'm guessing Matt also thinks it is, and NATO missed it - well, the staff at Scott and Travis could have done their jobs 100% correctly and still not prevented what happened. After verified R-37 combat shots, they probably already pushed the air bridge farther south. And my most likely guess isn't even the worst case.

P-3 will work.

F-14, in OTL these did not retire from US service until September 2006. So in TLW they're probably in a mix of reserve and active service. (I am guessing)
Shaking half a dozen loose for rapid assignment to air bridge protection certainly makes sense - and everyone would absolutely scream for it at 300-400 troops per B747!

For that level of importance, they'll be pulled straight off flight decks if necessary.

P-3/B-52 or whatever would be the medium term solution. But in this circumstance there would absolutely have to be a very fast immediate response.

As to what it was, I'm thinking it's an uprated Firebar (Yak-28)

Cheers: Mark

For my ten-cents / Tuppence-ha-penny, I think the Soviet air-bridge interceptor could be a Tu-22DP...

The "DP" being the Russian "Dal'nego Perekhvata" or "long-range interception"

Apparently a long-range interceptor project based on the Tu-22M2 was considered at some stage, but either went no where or was terminated in OTL with the fall of the Soviet Union.

An existing maritime strike platform such as the Tu-22M would make sense as a very long range "interceptor"; it has the legs, was optimised for open ocean Ops and had a payload of c24,000Kg...

Fusilier wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 2:50 pm For my ten-cents / Tuppence-ha-penny, I think the Soviet air-bridge interceptor could be a Tu-22DP...

The "DP" being the Russian "Dal'nego Perekhvata" or "long-range interception"

Apparently a long-range interceptor project based on the Tu-22M2 was considered at some stage, but either went no where or was terminated in OTL with the fall of the Soviet Union.

An existing maritime strike platform such as the Tu-22M would make sense as a very long range "interceptor"; it has the legs, was optimised for open ocean Ops and had a payload of c24,000Kg...

I recall that Michael Palmer's "The War That Never Was" had something like that. The Soviets took a MiG-31 radar and fire control, put it on a TU-22M, and loaded the bomb bay with AA-9s. The scene was a couple of them springing a trap on RN's Sea Harriers that were trying to spring a trap like they did the previous day on a Backfire strike. Didn't work out very well.

It was also in both Hackett books, and even GDW took the idea and listed it as a "What-if" in their editions of Harpoon. FWIW, I'm going with Fusilier here and the TU-22DP.

James1978 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 4:23 am

Johnnie Lyle wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:16 am Or use existing two seater fighters with tanker support. It will virtually attrit fighters and tankers, but that’s your fastest response.

Those don't exactly grow in trees. But, the consolidated survivors of the Unites States' two F-14D squadrons do form a squadron(-) in Alaska. Short term, they ride shotgun to a limited extent while the somebody comes up with a hunting plan.

Aye, but needs must when the devil drives. We don’t have time to wait for a dedicated air bridge escort; those planes need to keep flying, and so they need escorts or being pushed to a much more southerly route.

James1978 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 4:23 am

Johnnie Lyle wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:16 amBut honestly, the Air Bridge got sloppy and complacent, and paid for it in blood.

In this instance, I don't agree that they got sloppy and complacent.
I went into GoogleEarth and placed the MiG-31's supersonic combat radius (~750km) and subsonic combat radius (~1,400km) from a few far eastern Soviet air bases. Then I placed three great circle paths to Yokota AB - from McChord AFB, WA; Travis AFB, CA; and Hickam AFB, HI.

To stay outside the 1,400km ring of a known threat, the air bridge was already running pretty far south. And that's before 16th Air Army caught NATO by surprise with those R-37s about a day back.

The Soviets used something big, with a lot of range - enough range to go hunting far into the North Pacific. So they either built a brand new aircraft without NATO intelligence getting wind of it, or they were able to hide it in plain sight. If it's what I think it is, and what I'm guessing Matt also thinks it is, and NATO missed it - well, the staff at Scott and Travis could have done their jobs 100% correctly and still not prevented what happened. After verified R-37 combat shots, they probably already pushed the air bridge farther south. And my most likely guess isn't even the worst case.

As others have pointed out above, there were long-range anti-transport aircraft on the drawing board; given a longer lasting Soviet Union, those plans are more likely to come to fruition. From Bernard’s description, it really does sound like they shifted the limited transport assets the bare minimum south. The threat assumption looks like it was based on assesed Sov capabilities as the only factor, without consideration as to whether the importance of the Air Bridge would inspire countermeasures.

Thanks for all the kind comments, gents. They are appreciated.

The PRC has its reasons for putting pressure on the USSR. Remember, their leadership tends to be better at long termism than the West and Soviet Union.

With regards to MAC and the Pacific Air Bridge, it's hard to plan for something that you don't know exists. Moreover, BARCAPs were in place to cover the known threats. IMVHO, the most immediate response will be to route the Air Bridge further south. I am not going to comment on what the Soviet aircraft was.

Bernard Woolley wrote: ↑Sat Aug 23, 2025 2:24 pm
I am not going to comment on what the Soviet aircraft was.

We all know it was a MiG-31 "Firefox."