Hypersonic Bomber in Lieu of XB-70

[KJ_Lesnick]

I was reading about the Convair Super Hustler which proceeded in development in the late 1950's.  There was also a proposal for a HW-1 Drone which used wave-riding and compression lift principles.

I was thinking, imagine if

• The WS-125 was allowed to be cancelled once an all nuclear cruise WS-110 could be done
  
• Nuclear propulsion would be developed instead using modifications of the NB-36H and other small proof of concept designs
  
• The XB-70 was allowed to simply be cancelled around 1957 to 1958
  
• A hypersonic wave-rider would be developed in it's place (1958?) in absolute secrecy
  

.
I'm thinking the following would be fine for deterrence talk at the time

• Ballistic missile developments
  
• The B-58's high altitude capability
  
• Low altitude use of the B-47, B-58, and eventually the B-52
  

As well as the effectiveness of the A-4, F-104, F-105

This design wouldn't actually be a deterrent, it would be an ace in the hole

[rickshaw]

I highly recommend that you watch "Dr. Strangelove" and "Fail Safe" (the original).  If you are smart enough, you'll work out how destabilising an "ace in the hole" is, in terms of nuclear deterrence.  You might then watch "The Day After" and "Threads" to understand what the consequences were of a failure in nuclear deterrence and what that meant during the Cold War, Kendra/Robynn.

Once you have done that little bit of homework, come back and I will discuss the issue at length with you, if you desire.  I did Nuclear Strategy as part of my Master of Defence Studies course back in the 1980s.  It is gladly one subject I was pleased to never have the opportunity to observe in real life.

Do not though, ask any more questions until you have done that little bit of homework.

[Dizzyfugu]

You might also google for the US project "Pluto" - a nuclear-powered missile. Scary thing.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Rickshaw

1. I saw Dr. Strangelove, and The Day After: I actually was quite surprised I lived to see adulthood

2. I'm not talking about nuclear deterrence: I'm talking about ending the insanity that we then knew as the Cold War.

• Such an aircraft would not leave the signature of an ICBM during launch
  
• It would be much harder to intercept than an ICBM due to maneuvering capability
  
• The Mk.41 nuclear bomb showed it was possible to build a nuclear weapon with a yield of around 5-6 megatons per metric ton so it would be possible to either carry a Mk.41 or a few smaller weapons of 5 megatons
  

.
3. If the XB-70 was cancelled in 1957, could the LRIX have continued development?  If so it could provide means of a boost-phase intercept provided it had aerial refueling in conjunction with this.


Dizzyfugu

SLAM/Pluto was certifiably insane not only in the fact that it was a missile that could cruise on station until ordered down onto the deck and chuck nuclear bombs everywhere; it's exhaust was radioactive and would inevitably irradiate friendlies on the way in: To make it worse, it would also circle over cities to simply irradiate everything out of existence (which is not a counterstrike tactic anymore, but mere counter-value) also on it's terminal dive would have potentially kicked up so much radiation as to make Chernobyl look fairly mild.

[pyro-manic]

Rickshaw
2. I'm not talking about nuclear deterrence: I'm talking about ending the insanity that we then knew as the Cold War.

But the only way that such a capability would end the cold war would be to turn it hot. This is pretty basic stuff.

[Leading Observer]

Having spent nearly 18 years in the Royal Observer Corps during the 70's, 80's and 90's, voluntarily spending weekends in cold damp underground posts practising for when the politicians got it wrong [thankfully they didn't], I'm very glad that neither side had an ace in the hole

[KJ_Lesnick]

Rickshaw

1. If it was used as a deterrent, would it be able to last from 1965 to 1975?
2. Could it have successfully lead to an end of the Cold War?
3. If it got hot, could it successfully get through?

Let's assume Mach 8 capability, altitude 100,000 - 170,000 feet, range 6,000 to 11,500 nm, able to pull 7g subsonic, 3.5 hypersonic

[rickshaw]

Rickshaw

1. I saw Dr. Strangelove, and The Day After: I actually was quite surprised I lived to see adulthood

It is obvious though, that you failed to grasp the more subtle points of Dr. Strangelove.

2. I'm not talking about nuclear deterrence: I'm talking about ending the insanity that we then knew as the Cold War.

• Such an aircraft would not leave the signature of an ICBM during launch
  
• It would be much harder to intercept than an ICBM due to maneuvering capability
  
• The Mk.41 nuclear bomb showed it was possible to build a nuclear weapon with a yield of around 5-6 megatons per metric ton so it would be possible to either carry a Mk.41 or a few smaller weapons of 5 megatons
  

This would not have ended the Cold War.  It would have turned it into a hot, nuclear one.

Any such weapon would have a potentially destabilising influence on nuclear deterrence.  Under Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), both sides are balanced and the potential for war is also balanced by the fear of the consequences.   There is though, at all times an urge towards first use, to get the drop on your opponent and destroy their nuclear forces (or at least a large part of them) before they can be used to destroy your nation.   That urge is also balanced by the fear that you will fail to destroy sufficient of your opponent's nuclear forces and so your nation will suffer the consequences which were made so stark in The Day After.  Because you are afraid of your opponent actually undertaking a first strike, you suffer from a fear that you must "use it or lose it" which means in turn, you should strike first!  Yes, it becomes a circular argument and that is the danger - everything points to the logic of striking first.  Thankfully civilian considerations over-ride purely military ones and so the first strike urge is held in check but is always in danger of breaking out as shown in both Fail Safe and Dr. Strangelove.

In Dr. Strangelove (and Fail Safe) the first use urge is written quite plainly.  It takes the form of a surprise attack with manned nuclear bombers.  In both, the Soviet response is actually quite believable in hindsight - confusion, uncertainty and above all else, an inability to actually successfully intercept the bombers successfully to the point that some get through, one even to Moscow the most heavily defended city in the world at the time.

Your supersonic bomber would have, at the time of it's introduction not been able to be kept secret.  The reality is that an aircraft of the size and capability as such an beast could not be kept secret.  The Soviets would become aware of not it's complete details but sufficient to alarm them.  This would make them more willing, not less willing to accept the risks of a first strike strategy with their ICBMs because they would fear that they must "use it or lose it" to a successful first strike from the USA.  The United States would, believing it had an "ace in the hole" also be more willing to succumb to the possibility of a first strike being successful.  The result would be greater instability in the MAD doctrine, on both sides and that would be a dangerous situation to be in.

The introduction of any new weapon into a nuclear deterrence situation is fraught with this danger.  We observed it in real life with the introduction of new intermediate range weapons in Europe, first by the Soviets and then later by NATO.  We also observed situations where the introduction of new strategies created greater instability.  The USN's "In Harm's Way" with it's openly articulated objective of attacking Soviet strategic missile submarines in the Soviet established "bastions" created a "first use" mentality of either "use it or lose it" in Soviet thinking in the late 1980s.

In such a situation, more weapons with greater capabilities would not, could not end the Cold War, Kendra/Robynn.  They could and did actually make it more likely that a nuclear war would break out.  We can see similar situations being repeated in the Indian sub-continent between Pakistan and India.  In the Middle-East between Israel and Iran.   New weapons creating greater instability.

3. If the XB-70 was cancelled in 1957, could the LRIX have continued development?  If so it could provide means of a boost-phase intercept provided it had aerial refueling in conjunction with this.

1. No.  The same imperatives which caused the cancellation of the XB-70 would have still existed.
2. No.  What is the flight time from the continental USA to the part of the fUSSR where the majority of Soviet ICBMs were based?  Unless your aircraft could do it in less than the time it took for the Politburo to realise they were under attack and launch, it could not hope to intercept the Soviet ICBMs before they launched.  Then you have the problem of the SLBMs.  How does it find the submarines before they launch?  Then there is the problem of arming it with a missile which had sufficient performance to intercept an ballistic missile.  So such a plan would be prevented by the sheer physics of the problem.

[Weaver]

Basically, if you want to "win" the Cold War (i.e. not bring about the end of the world), you have to:


a) convince the other side that they can't win WWIII,

b) remain convinced that you can't win WWIII either.


Not having enough convincing weapons undermines point a), but having too many convincing weapons, particulary "aces in the hole" undermines point b) just as dangerously.

[rickshaw]

Exactly Weaver.  Well put.  Nuclear deterrence like we saw in the Cold War is a fine balancing act.  It is also about making the other side believe that you will use your weapons but that you will not use them first (despite the first use imperative).

[Dizzyfugu]

Dizzyfugu

SLAM/Pluto was certifiably insane not only in the fact that it was a missile that could cruise on station until ordered down onto the deck and chuck nuclear bombs everywhere; it's exhaust was radioactive and would inevitably irradiate friendlies on the way in: To make it worse, it would also circle over cities to simply irradiate everything out of existence (which is not a counterstrike tactic anymore, but mere counter-value) also on it's terminal dive would have potentially kicked up so much radiation as to make Chernobyl look fairly mild.

Yup. Scary, that's a VERY good description. Moreover, this thing could/would have cruised at low level at very high supersonic speed. The noise and shock waves alone would probably have wrecked enough havoc - just imagine such a screaming thing cruising over a big city, tossing tactical nukes every now and then, polluting anything with radioactive fallout and screeching all the time!

Scary... Who would need a hypersonic bomber if you can send THIS?

[pyro-manic]

[Dizzyfugu]

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

Your supersonic bomber would have, at the time of it's introduction not been able to be kept secret.  The reality is that an aircraft of the size and capability as such an beast could not be kept secret.

How did SLAM stay secret?

[Runway ? ...]

Your supersonic bomber would have, at the time of it's introduction not been able to be kept secret.  The reality is that an aircraft of the size and capability as such an beast could not be kept secret.

How did SLAM stay secret?

Flying a type of aircraft is different to building and (ground)testing the Tory engines.