History has proven the same thing that the fictional account Clancy wrote illustrates - swarm attacks- are a poor strategy in a protracted war.
Could they, however, be sustained at a success rate which would win the war?
It was demonstrated during WWII that carriers could suddenly and unexpectedly swing a battle around. It actually started bad, but ended in total catastrophe from which the Japanese would never truly recover from. A saturated attack against a fleet will definitely wear them down.
Soviet planes were notoriously short-legged compared to Western counterparts; would that range shortfall lead to an air coverage gap that Western aircraft could exploit?
Could the Backfires, or especially the Bears, be caught in that unsecured portion of their journey...
Can the Soviets, without long-range fighter support, manage to protect the returning raiders?
There are only a certain number of practical routes that the aircraft can fly- dictated by fuel capacity, munitions weights, and target availability (which would be known by allied forces).
How long can the safe travel lanes for the Bears and Backfires be kept open?
This would be a major factor in how long that the raiders could continue to be effective.
Sending out many, many planes with even more missiles.
Fire them all in a coordinated attack will owerwhelm enemy defenses, causing damage to said fleet.
was also back in service in a matter of weeks, and the scenario I spoke of- with precise raid warnings and 'attacks' on returning raiders ensued...