SAC & Enemy Missile Projection Estimates

[PR19_Kit]

• While the USAF stopped overflights over the Soviet Union in 1960 by manned aircraft: Did the RAF?
  
  

Do a search on 'Meteor PR19'...................      

Hmm, the emoticons don't work...........

[sandiego89]

Kendra, I am not so sure the UK and the US "came to different conclusions" as you state.  During the cold war there were numerous different aircraft and crews with a variety of profiles.  Both started with high altitude, penetration, and went increasingly to low level, and more reliance on stand off weapons as defenses got more sophisticated.  Routes and targets varied greatly, and some were much more difficult.  All crews understood that there would be some that got through, some would not and all understood the world would never be the same if an all out nuclear exchange happened.  After the first strikes your home base and family might be gone, you may not be able to find a tanker, and indeed some flight profiles called for recovery in neutral places like Iran, or as the old joke went: "fly to the East or the Urals, bail out and find a nice Russian woman to spend the rest of your life with..."

There was some sharing of intelligence and coordination, but both countries were prepared to go it alone if the circumstances dictated, and many targets were redundantly targeted to ensure a kill.  Eventually the SIOP plan came into being with US forces, and with nuclear sharing programs. 

There were indeed some performance and capability differences between different airframes. All smart planners tried to maximize the capabilities of their respective airframes.  Some were going to have the cards stacked more against them.  I do not envy the F-104 crews that would fly at ultra low level with an eye patch to save their sight from the nuclear flash, nor the early P2V crews that would have been JATO'd off a carrier on a one way mission.   Some had better electronics, some had better all weather performance, etc- but getting into a "which was better debate" between fleets with very different requirements is really tough, and often is futile.   

Both countries had cunning planners and dedicated crews that were ready to execute the mission. 

Confidence could vary between the target, the defenses, the weather, your airframe, the weapons, equipment and your training.  Some were likely more confident than others.  Flying a B-52 over the Arctic and unleashing cruise missiles form long distances might instill higher confidence than going to "downtown" Moscow.   

Both had rules, some were more flexible than others.  SAC was indeed quite procedural, but again it is futile to get into the "better" debate.  Naval crews seemed to allow for greater flexibility.   Some routes had specific routes, waypoints and profiles. Most had a very specific target. 

All had courage and dedication, and would have done their best to get through. Luckily they never had to.  Bless them all. 

-Dave

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

PR19_Kit

Do a search on 'Meteor PR19'...................      

I'll do a search for it, but I guess the RAF did not carry overflights after 1960?


Dave

Kendra, I am not so sure the UK and the US "came to different conclusions" as you state.

I'm not sure exactly when the member I was talking about flew exactly, what I can say is the following

• He flew during a period where the F-101B's were online
  
• He flew off against them during a simulated bomber-attack in which they able to get themselves onto the F-101B's tail and stay there
  
• He stated that during at least some point in the service of the aircraft they were going to fly in high and alter course every certain number of seconds while using jamming to deny lock-on and engagement; that the SA-2's at the time were not able to be ripple-fired or at least fired in large numbers rapidly
  
• He stated that during some of his time in service they would come in low and so forth
  

I cannot really determine what years this correlates to: Did we (US/UK) collect any ELINT data on the SA-2's that were based in Communist Bloc countries other than Russia which we were allowed to overfly?

Both had rules, some were more flexible than others.

How did SAC and Bomber command compare?

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw

All the west knew was that these missiles had destroyed Gary Powers' U-2, an aircraft that was supposedly invulnerable to other interception efforts.

I did some research and it would appear that a Canberra got blown up in 1959, I know about Gary Powers in 1960, and Major Anderson in 1962.  I'm curious though about something else, which might sound silly, but they are legitimate questions

• Were there any cases where Taiwanese Canberra's were able to either prevent a lock-on or outmaneuver the missile?
  
• When either the U-2's or Canberra's were engaged: How many missiles were fired?  Was it a one-shot, one-kill deal, or were several fired?
  

While, I know we agreed not to overfly the USSR after Gary Powers was shot down: We still did fly missions of the following type from 1960-1965

• Over Communist Bloc countries excluding Russia
  
• Near Russian territory but outside the 3-12nm area
  

correct?

I'm asking this because of several reasons

• The SA-2's appeared in at least one or two Communist bloc nations as early as 1960 (I did some research).
  
• The USAF's SAC had planned to employ an attack pattern called a "basket-weave" from 1958-1962: This involved changing heading a certain number of degrees every certain number of seconds and minutes while employing jamming and chaffing at the minimum (I'm not sure if a cell-formation was to be used, but we had decoys as of 1960) and appeared to involve high-altitude operations in spite of the SA-2's.
  

The U-2 had been downed.  It had been considered "invulnerable".  What was the point of the B-70 then?

The B-70 was greatly faster for one, and it had substantial electronic jamming and even missiles to defend itself...

[James W.]

The U-2 had been downed.  It had been considered "invulnerable".  What was the point of the B-70 then?

A U-2  flying at subsonic speed is a level of magnitude easier to calculate & execute an SA-2 intercept vector on - than a Mach 3 target.
It is notable that no successful SR-71 intercepts were made, & the recce Foxbats streaking at Mach 3 got across IDF airspace  like-wise..

I don't know if a practice  Bomarc vs  XB-70 interception vector was ever attempted, or a  Bomarc versus Bomarc interception trial was carried out..
.. but they did hit Mach 2 Regulus target drones.. but..  that still aint a successful Mach 3 intercept..

[KJ_Lesnick]

James W.

A U-2  flying at subsonic speed is a level of magnitude easier to calculate & execute an SA-2 intercept vector on - than a Mach 3 target.

That's correct

I don't know if a practice  Bomarc vs  XB-70 interception vector was ever attempted, or a  Bomarc versus Bomarc interception trial was carried out..

F-106's did carry out simulated attacks on the CIM-10.  Not sure the result, but I think they succeeded

[rickshaw]

rickshaw

All the west knew was that these missiles had destroyed Gary Powers' U-2, an aircraft that was supposedly invulnerable to other interception efforts.

I did some research and it would appear that a Canberra got blown up in 1959, I know about Gary Powers in 1960, and Major Anderson in 1962.  I'm curious though about something else, which might sound silly, but they are legitimate questions

• Were there any cases where Taiwanese Canberra's were able to either prevent a lock-on or outmaneuver the missile?
  
• When either the U-2's or Canberra's were engaged: How many missiles were fired?  Was it a one-shot, one-kill deal, or were several fired?
  

While, I know we agreed not to overfly the USSR after Gary Powers was shot down: We still did fly missions of the following type from 1960-1965

• Over Communist Bloc countries excluding Russia
  
• Near Russian territory but outside the 3-12nm area
  

correct?

I'm asking this because of several reasons

• The SA-2's appeared in at least one or two Communist bloc nations as early as 1960 (I did some research).
  
• The USAF's SAC had planned to employ an attack pattern called a "basket-weave" from 1958-1962: This involved changing heading a certain number of degrees every certain number of seconds and minutes while employing jamming and chaffing at the minimum (I'm not sure if a cell-formation was to be used, but we had decoys as of 1960) and appeared to involve high-altitude operations in spite of the SA-2's.
  

The U-2 had been downed.  It had been considered "invulnerable".  What was the point of the B-70 then?

The B-70 was greatly faster for one, and it had substantial electronic jamming and even missiles to defend itself...

All those factors have been worked out in retrospect.  At the time, the idea that the U-2 was invulnerable because of it's great height was widely propagated amongst the Politicians and Service people "in the know".  The psychological effect of the downing of Powers was considerable.   Please, there was the promise just coming to fruition of the possibility of completely uninterceptable satellites, high overhead offering the same or better levels of recognition.

Yes, the B-70 was a beast.  Yes, it might have been uninterceptable for a few years BUT don't doubt that the USSR's boffins were working on the means to do it.  Be they SAMs or Interceptors, they were going to have a damned good try at intercepting that transgressing Yankee Imperialist produce of the Military-Industrial complex.

As for the SR-71 "never been intercepted", there have been accounts of BAC Lightnings and Saab Viggens intercepting the SR-71 on it's missions going to and from the periphery of the Soviet Union.   The Lightning's favourite trick was to adopt a ballistic profile and come in from above the SR-71, which caught the SR-71 drivers by surprise as they believed their own hype about how high they flew.   The Viggens also adopted a ballistic profile but came in from below the SR-71.

[Rheged]

I did some research and it would appear that a Canberra got blown up in 1959, correct?

I'm not able to find anything about a Canberra being taken down  (Martin B57 perhaps, but not RAF Canberra)

As for the SR-71 "never been intercepted", there have been accounts of BAC Lightnings and Saab Viggens intercepting the SR-71 on it's missions going to and from the periphery of the Soviet Union.   The Lightning's favourite trick was to adopt a ballistic profile and come in from above the SR-71, which caught the SR-71 drivers by surprise as they believed their own hype about how high they flew.   The Viggens also adopted a ballistic profile but came in from below the SR-71.



As regards the Blackbird, there is a story that one of these coming over the Atlantic at a "relaxed" Mach 1.6 being told by either Prestwick or Shannon to get out of the way of overtaking traffic. The conversation between them  must have been quite interesting:-

Prestwick Oceanic to  US aircraft "Please descend by 5000feet to allow passing passenger aircraft traffic"

US aircraft "We are USAF Blackbird, our current speed Mach 1.6, suggest you recheck radar calibration, please confirm this instruction"

Prestwick Oceanic" Descend immediately, BOAC Speedbird flight 002 overtaking you at Mach 1.97"

UA aircraft "Descending, Please confirm BOAC aircraft type"

BOAC flight  002 "Blackbird,  this is BOAC Concorde, 95 passengers who are just finishing their Smoked Salmon Starter"

So there you have it, 2 brave US aviators, trussed up like astronauts in a tiny cockpit being overtaken by their grannies sitting in leather comfort sipping G&T s

Don't know if it's actually true, but it should be!     

[PR19_Kit]

As regards the Blackbird, there is a story that one of these coming over the Atlantic at a "relaxed" Mach 1.6 being told by either Prestwick or Shannon to get out of the way of overtaking traffic. The conversation between them  must have been quite interesting:-

Prestwick Oceanic to  US aircraft "Please descend by 5000feet to allow passing passenger aircraft traffic"

US aircraft "We are USAF Blackbird, our current speed Mach 1.6, suggest you recheck radar calibration, please confirm this instruction"

Prestwick Oceanic" Descend immediately, BOAC Speedbird flight 002 overtaking you at Mach 1.97"

UA aircraft "Descending, Please confirm BOAC aircraft type"

BOAC flight  002 "Blackbird,  this is BOAC Concorde, 95 passengers who are just finishing their Smoked Salmon Starter"
 

Hehehe, love it. 

Being a bit JMN it would have been a 'BA Speedbird' as BOAC morphed into BA before the Concordes joined their fleet.

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw

All those factors have been worked out in retrospect.  At the time, the idea that the U-2 was invulnerable because of it's great height was widely propagated amongst the Politicians and Service people "in the know".  The psychological effect of the downing of Powers was considerable.

So, they believed the exaggerations they themselves propagated?

Yes, the B-70 was a beast.  Yes, it might have been uninterceptable for a few years BUT don't doubt that the USSR's boffins were working on the means to do it.  Be they SAMs or Interceptors

True, but the XB-70 was to carry missiles of it's own to shoot down missiles and fighters too...

As for the SR-71 "never been intercepted", there have been accounts of BAC Lightnings and Saab Viggens intercepting the SR-71 on it's missions going to and from the periphery of the Soviet Union.

Were they at full speed?

[rickshaw]

rickshaw

All those factors have been worked out in retrospect.  At the time, the idea that the U-2 was invulnerable because of it's great height was widely propagated amongst the Politicians and Service people "in the know".  The psychological effect of the downing of Powers was considerable.

So, they believed the exaggerations they themselves propagated?

No, they believed the hype they had been told, Kendra/Robyn.  Only a few made the stories up, the rest used their imagination, based on those stories.

Yes, the B-70 was a beast.  Yes, it might have been uninterceptable for a few years BUT don't doubt that the USSR's boffins were working on the means to do it.  Be they SAMs or Interceptors

True, but the XB-70 was to carry missiles of it's own to shoot down missiles and fighters too...

As the PIRA used to say in Northern Ireland about their Terrorism versus the Security Services effort to stop them, "You have to get lucky every time.  We only have to get lucky once."   The B-70 would be a complex target to intercept but I don't doubt that the Soviets would have tried.   Just as they developed the means to intercept the B-45, the B-36, the B-47 and the B-52, the V-Bombers and the Canberra...  Nothing is invulnerable, forever, Kendra/Robyn.

As for the SR-71 "never been intercepted", there have been accounts of BAC Lightnings and Saab Viggens intercepting the SR-71 on it's missions going to and from the periphery of the Soviet Union.

Were they at full speed?

Who knows?  All I have read are the stories propagated by the Lightning pilots.  The SR-71 pilots remain silent.   I don't doubt, with the correct radar guidance, it was possible.

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw

No, they believed the hype they had been told, Kendra/Robyn.

Those in the know, were aware of it's performance right?  If they did, why didn't they realize a plane with greatly better speed and at least the same if not higher altitude would not be a comparison...

As the PIRA used to say in Northern Ireland about their Terrorism versus the Security Services effort to stop them, "You have to get lucky every time.  We only have to get lucky once."

That's an argument that usually favors the offense... which at the time would have been us, not the Russians...

The B-70 would be a complex target to intercept but I don't doubt that the Soviets would have tried.

Of course...

Nothing is invulnerable, forever

Of course, but the ability to shoot back at the missiles and aircraft with a missile that could do twice what current missiles could do (and possibly pull in excess of 250g once at Mach 3 and above) would make things very difficult for any attacker: The fighters seem like they'd be hard pressed to shake it loose...

[Snowtrooper]

From public information we know that the SR-71 could overfly North Vietnam at will and of the 800+ missiles fired at it in anger, none hit. So we can safely assume it was practically immune to the SA-2/S-75 system, since the North Vietnamese air defence network at the time was the densest in the world except maybe around Moscow itself. It never had to fly against SA-10/S-300 and later missiles though. Also, it was a combination of speed and stealth, the latter of which the B-70 would not have possessed. Using a radar to guide a missile fired by another SAM site was simply beyond Soviet capabilities of the time, so once the 71 was out of range of the launching site radar, it did not matter even if the missile would have had the energy to chase it down.

Air-air intercept assuming MiG-25 (later -31) as the launch platform might have been a tricky one, though, as the 25 could verifiably intercept the 71 much in the same way as Viggens and Lightnings did (the 71's used preset routes according to static schedules in the Europe). Could it have done that if the plane had approached from a surprising heading at an unkown time? And in any case, again the 71 was stealthy while the 70 was not.

Of course, both of the above points explain why there was the interest to have a SR-71/YF-12 derivative as a launch platform for nuclear-tipped AGM-76 Falcons or even stock AGM-68 SRAM's. It would have had the speed and stealth required for high-altitude penetration in a nuclear mission.

[sandiego89]

True, but the XB-70 was to carry missiles of it's own to shoot down missiles and fighters too...

First time I had heard of the B-70 having an air to air capability.  Do you have a source or know what it was supposed to carry? 

[PR19_Kit]

True, but the XB-70 was to carry missiles of it's own to shoot down missiles and fighters too...

First time I had heard of the B-70 having an air to air capability.  Do you have a source or know what it was supposed to carry?

Wasn't there something about projected 'missile packs' to be carried in the bomb bay?

I've got a couple of books on the B-70 somewhere, but naturally there's NO chance of finding them just now.