USSTAF/SAC Rationale

[KJ_Lesnick]

Okay, I understand the bombers used by the USAAF employed an olive-drab color-scheme because it would theoretically make them harder to see; later on they went to NMF to save weight.  When the decision came to drop the bomb, whether it was understood the effects of flash, the aircraft's silver finish might very well have been useful for doing stuff like reflecting away almost all the flash.

From WWII to the 1950's, it would seem that NMF won the day; from Post Korea to Vietnam, aircraft were painted in either silver, or white.

In Vietnam: Aircraft were generally painted in SEA camo up top and white on the underside at first; then black on the underside similar to the night-bomber camo that Bomber-Command used in WWII.  This continued throughout to the end of the war as far as I know.

After Vietnam, the bombers went to a kind of dark blue/grey: I understand that it's a good color for night operations, and difficult to pick out from below at altitude in a medium/dark-blue sky at altitude.  What I don't get is the nuclear-flash issue.

[scooter]

After Vietnam, the bombers went to a kind of dark blue/grey: I understand that it's a good color for night operations, and difficult to pick out from below at altitude in a medium/dark-blue sky at altitude.  What I don't get is the nuclear-flash issue.

In a theoretical nuclear exchange, high-level bombing would be accomplished mostly by ICBMs & SLBMs.  Manned bombers would be terrain-masking for both passive ECM and nuke flash, putting as much ground between them and the cruise missiles they just fired off. 

From a practical side: 1) Multiple paint types take up more time in the paint shop than just one type of paint during repainting, 2) supposedly the paints contain materials that help with radar scattering.

[KJ_Lesnick]

scooter

In a theoretical nuclear exchange, high-level bombing would be accomplished mostly by ICBMs & SLBMs.  Manned bombers would be terrain-masking for both passive ECM and nuke flash, putting as much ground between them and the cruise missiles they just fired off.

So the intention was to use cruise-missiles?  Was there any intention with aircraft such as the B-1 to drop actual nuclear bombs or just use missiles?

I assume they would do a lay-down delivery with a time-delay to get them far enough out?

From a practical side: 1) Multiple paint types take up more time in the paint shop than just one type of paint during repainting, 2) supposedly the paints contain materials that help with radar scattering.

That makes a lot of sense

Thank you

[sandiego89]

Was there any intention with aircraft such as the B-1 to drop actual nuclear bombs or just use missiles?

Yes, the B-1B was very much configured to carry free fall nuclear bombs (as well as a variety of nuclear missiles) when it was conducting the nuclear role. 

The B61 and B83 were the primary nuclear bombs (and the B28 was also cleared for use) for the B-1B.   All nuclear bomb carriage was internal, on rotary launchers, for a maximum load of 24 B61 or B83 bombs (8 per rotary launcher).  Each rotary launcher had to be loaded with the same model of weapon.     

The B-2, B-52 and F-111 also have/had free fall capability. 

-Dave