A Soviet Swinger

THERE was more than a little skepticism last spring when U.S. Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird announced that the Soviets "have a new swing-wing bomber under development" with "intercontinental range capability." Cynics pooh-poohed the "Big Swinger" as a propaganda ploy for the Air Force, which was trying to convince Congress that the U.S. should go ahead with the development of its own swing-wing supersonic bomber, the B1. But the doubts have proved unjustified. The new Soviet strategic bomber, officially designated "Backfire" by NATO, has been spotted and tracked during a number of test flights from the Ramenskoye test center near Moscow. At the same time, intelligence sources report that the Soviets are well along in the design of the MIG-25 and MIG-27; they are potential successors to the MIG-23 "Foxbat," one of the most advanced fighters in the world.

The first swing-wing supersonic strategic bomber ever produced, Backfire is believed to have been designed by Andrei N. Tupolev, 82, who also developed the Soviet Union's TU-144 supersonic transport. Aerodynamicists believe that the 131-ft.-long, 250,000-lb. Backfire is made of stainless steel with titanium to resist the heat stress of supersonic flight, and has an airframe skin bonding (instead of riveting). The plane's wings are in a forward position for long-range cruising and are jackknifed back about 40DEG for speeds of Mach 2.1 (about 1,400 m.p.h.) at 50,000 ft. or Mach 1 plus (760 m.p.h.) at 500 ft. Backfire is apparently crammed with sophisticated electronic aids to confuse radar tracking. Carrying a crew of three, the plane has an estimated payload of 50 megatons in weaponry, including parachute-dropped hydrogen bombs. With one refueling, Backfire appears capable of striking the U.S. and returning home.

Backfire may be fully operational within two years. Though the U.S. is expected to maintain its lead in numbers of intercontinental bombers until 1975 or so, the B1, designed to replace the subsonic B-52 at a cost of $11 billion, will not be operational before 1978. Why bother with such costly mammoths in an age of intercontinental missiles? "The B-l can go, and then be recalled, and you can't do that with missiles," says one Pentagon official. "You don't make an irrevocable commitment with an aircraft." Congress, nonetheless, has yet to be sold on that argument.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.