[pmulcahy11b]

While the Soviets had a decent number of medium bombers, they weren't exactly blessed with large numbers of heavy strategic bombers. By Western Standards, even bombers like the Tu-22M Backfire are medium bombers. Also, a good portion of the Soviet bomber fleet were configured to carry small numbers (1-4) of large stand-off land attack and antishipping missiles (not as accurate or stealthy as true cruise missiles) instead of conventional free-fall bombs, and their bomber fleet of the time had no capability to launch precision-guided munitions. However, a good number of their stand-off missiles are supersonic, very high speed missiles. The Soviet doctrine called for large amounts of light bombers like the Su-24 and fighter-bombers to attack most rear-area and battlefield targets; the medium and the few heavy bombers were largely reserved for command and control nodes, nuclear weapons sites, some of the larger airfields, targets farther away such as England and France, and (especially) US aircraft carriers.

In the case of attacks on US carriers, the Soviets planned to use their bombers armed with stand-off missiles in large waves, knowing full well that they would lose a lot of aircraft in the process. They felt that taking out a carrier was worth the losses. The stand-off missiles in this case stood a good chance of being nuclear-tipped.

The Blackjack, on the other hand, breaks the rules in this case. It would be very rare at best in the T2K timeline, but it is a conventional strategic bomber larger than the B-1 (but similar in design) that is quite capable of filling the conventional heavy bomber role. I would think the Soviets would spare their few Blackjacks for heavy troop concentrations, airfield bombardment, and other actions which could tip the balance of a battle one way of another. Long-range raids into Alaska might be another role. However, it still does not have smart bomb or PGM capability.