Perhaps with limited objectives NATO might be able to seize some Warsaw Pact Territory before the Warsaw Pact can mass enough forces to stop them ?
A limited advance might limit the impact of the logistical issues ?
The “Why would NATO do this” question seems very hard to answer (: But...
My understanding is some of the RV’s that used heat sinks vs heat shields were much slower in the final stages of their flights than todays RV’s. I’ll leave it at that.
I recall this topic was hashed out a while back on this board and there was a document discussing how some early RV’s had blunt shapes (maybe a different “Beta” ?) and used different techniques to avoid burn up during re entry ? (Heat sinks ?) I also recall coming across references to slow RV’s...
That might depend on how much effort each side puts into to taking out isolated military units vs destroying other targets ? Until the relevant Cold War era warplans / target lists etc are made available I suspect all we can do is speculate.
Ie. How much effort would the USSR put into...
Maybe an old long range missile that might have had a subsonic (or perhaps low supersonic ?) RV ? (These probably were not around when the F15 was in service ?
Even with slow RV’s detecting the RV and then cueing an F15 to engage it prior to the RV reaching its target seems unlikely to me but...
I’m thinking if there was a need / desire by NATO to make a modest incursion into Warsaw pact territory that might result in a different outcome than a full scale invasion ?
A spoiling attack might be another scenario to consider ? Maybe NATO gets proof that large scale Warsaw pact exercises...
Good points but I suspect the proximity of major U.S. and Canadian population centres to Alaska (ie. Seattle and Vancouver amongst other examples) would cause some concerns. (Perhaps ABM systems evolve differently.)
I suspect the borders of a Soviet owned Alaska might be different than a...
Assuming the cold war in that time line evolved in a similar fashion to the cold war in our time line, in either of those cases I suspect Alaska and the Northwestern part of North America would have been a major potential cold war flash point. I suspect the USSR would either want to reclaim...
I was under the impression that the F106 was considered a fairly good interceptor.. Given enough money and access to US components (ie missiles and fire control systems..) it doesn't seem implausible to me that Canada in the 1950's and 1960's could have produced a Canadian equivalent (that...
I can't see why a fully developed and functional CF105 could not have replaced the CF100 in any air to air role that Canada actually used their CF100 fleet for ? That being said I seem to recall there were at least three variants of the CF100 that entered squadron Service (the Mark3, Mark4 and...
Perhaps the Canadians didn't want to mess with figuring out folding fin arrangements for internally stowed AAM's ? Perhaps more Falcon AAM's could have been carried than Sparrow 2's ?
I seem to recall that the final air to armament of the Canadian CF100 was two pods of air to air rockets that...
Decades ago I recall reading that the Arrow had (or was intended to have ?) an internal weapons bay carrying both AAM's and unguided rockets as backup air to air weapons. I also recall reading of it being conceivable that bombs or Cannon could have been carried internally for other missions...
My $.02 worth…
-Pick a more or less off the shelf avionics and weapons package. (Most likely from the U.S. ?)
-Demonstrate a truly long range capability that might enable very long range intercepts ? (Ie. Fly from southern (ish) bases and intercept targets while they are still within...