B-1A vs. B-1B

[usertron2020]

Should have just built the B-70 instead of trying to get tricky. I am going to come in at Mach 3+ and their is nothing you can do about it.

Not if you are coming AT them. Besides, the B-70 had a critical failing that I will mention at the end of this post.

How many of those missiles successfully intercepted a SR-71? Not even the MIG-25 got intercepts on the SR-71. A B-70 has just about the same performance envelop as the SR-71. Also the B-70 is more agile and much better EW capabilities and the B-70 can shoot back. You launch a missile at me I will launch a nuclear tipped Air to Ground missile back at you and my missile will hit your radar site long before your missile gets anywhere near me. The general rule of thump is that in order to start having a chance against a aircraft a missile has to have about 2.0 speed advantage. Think about a missile has to climb from a starting speed of 0 to the bombers altitude. The only missile that even starts to come close is the SA-5 and even then a intercept is iffy. Basically the B-70 scared the crap out of the Soviets because they knew that they had no effective counter. However McNamara was a idiot and threw away all the development time with this bomber to build more ICBM's.

Those SR-71s were flying at the extreme edge of Soviet airspace, traveling alongside that airspace, NOT on a direct vector to cross right into Soviet airspace. Crossing the tangent, not heading for the center of a circle. The Soviets AFAIK were NOT cleared to open fire on US SR-71s as long as they were in international airspace. So too the SR-71s were under equally strict orders to use their side-viewing cameras to view their intel targets without violating Soviet airspace. Of course, that didn't mean that occasionally the SR-71s didn't stray over the line, nor did the Soviets not try for some shots.

The problem for the Soviets wasn't the performance of their Mig-25s. It was the performance of their AA missiles at an SR-71's operational altitudes. They couldn't function properly up there. Unless Victor Belenko was lying, that is. So no matter how fast or well the Mig-25 Foxbat flew, she was essentially firing spitballs against SR-71s. That, and she had a horrendous turn radius. Not nearly as bad as the SR-71, if course.

Also, the SR-71 could see fighters approaching, and if there was any real danger, it could always abort.

The SR-71 never really flew into the most densely defended airspace though, something the B-70 can't avoid. Had that project gone forward the Soviets would complete the interceptor version of the Sukhoi T-4. Betting on the B-70 would likely have led to another fiasco like the B-58 which had to be withdrawn after just 10 years in service.

At any rate canceling the B-70 was a smart decision considering ICBMs, SLBMs, and ALCMs had the nuclear triad more than covered. Which program would you kill for the B-70? I can't think of one.

Exactly. Stealth, cruise missiles, MIRVes, all contributed to making the B-70 obsolete. Frankly, after what happened to the U-2 piloted by Major Francis Gary Powers, the right decision was made.

SR-71's routinely flew over North Vietnam during the Vietnam war. I am not sure where you are getting your facts about SR-71's not flying into heavily defended airspace. (1) Also a SR-71 flew into Libya 6-hours after the 1986 bomb raid for damage assessment when all the air defenses where active without issue. (2) So the T-4 never even achieved it's design speed of Mach 3 but somehow it is going to intercept it mach 3+ bomber. I would love to see that. Even assuming that the Soviet Union had the resources to put it into production. The MIG-25 was supposed to be that interceptor of Mach 3+ bomber and it even feel short. The only true Mach 3+ interceptor was the YF-12. (3)

I would simply kill the entire B-1 program. Build the B-70 instead. (4) It is more likely to get through air defenses than the B-1. (5) Also a B-70 has one big thing over SLBM's, ICBM's and ALCM , it can be recalled. (6) Despite what Hollywood might have us believe a SLBM, ICBM and ALCM are not able to be recalled after launch a B-70 can up until the point that the bombs are leaving the racks. (7)

1) The Soviet ADF =/= North Vietnam's air defenses. That's not a proper measuring stick. And if Hanoi could shoot down SR-71s, B-52s (or any other aircraft) would never survive a single sortie over the city.

2) The Soviet ADF =/= Libyan air defenses. Libya had only four missile sites in the whole country containing the S-200, the only long range AA missile system Libya had that had even a remote chance of shooting down an SR-71. Providing the aircraft got close enough, and the vertically command obsessed Soviet style missile system got the order to open fire on a target that was not attacking.

3) I'm not sure how you are going to put AA missiles on a YF-12 that can be launched at Mach 3? The B-70 had its own problems. See below.

4) You're trusting late 1950s avionics over late 1970s?

5) ....... By flying above a threat rather than below it? By dropping free-falling bombs or ASM's Major Kong-style rather than ALCM's? See below.

6) You can say that about any bomber, not just the B-70. The DISadvantage of the bomber is that in the event of a enemy strategic surprise attack most of your ICBMs and SLBMs can still be launched in time, but some 2/3rds of your bomber force will be destroyed on the ground.

7) If your bomber force has crossed enemy airspace in full force, its a safe bet that by that time you are "Game On" for DEFCON 1 Your very first targets will have already been hit by this time (coastal air defenses, interceptor bases, etc). So if its merely to be as a threat, then the bombers have to orbit outside of enemy airspace, being constantly refueled by air, and where the chances are astronomical for a miscue or miscalculation.

The MIG-25 couldn't get above Mach 3 without the engine MELTING.

Shredding itself, catching fire, and melting. It was mostly done as a means of disinformation to NATO, to make them think the Mig-25 could do more than it really could. Big mistake. It convinced Congress to fund the F-series.

I'm not sure where you are getting your facts about the SR-71 flying into heavily defended Soviet airspace.

Into, never. Maybe if it had been around before the U-2 shootdown...

I'm not sure the SR-71 overflew the Soviet Union at all. I've seen some references to missions over Petropavlovsk, but I don't think they would have risked flying over the Western Soviet Union or Siberia.

Correct. I'm pretty sure that was one of the little "understandings" the US & USSR got into after the Cuban Missile Crisis. Between Major Rudolph Anderson's U-2 being shot down over Cuba and a U-2 crossing into Soviet airspace near the same time on a mission that was supposed to be cancelled, both sides realized they couldn't control all the actions of their military forces at all times. But IDK. After Nixon and Brezhnev got in, maybe the controls were loosened...?

Finally, about the B-70's future? After the shooting down of the Powers U-2, the decision was made that missile technology would ultimately become too deadly to high flying aircraft. Future strategic bombers would have to find their way via low-level penetration, not high. In 1960, in theory, it was seen that the Missile would always be able to find the Bomber. This was the inversion of the pre-WWII concept that "the bomber would always get through". But the missile was seen as much more formidable. Anti-missile ECM and ECCM were in their infancy at the time, and missiles required neither pilots nor oxygen nor were they constrained much by g-forces.

The 1960 US Air Force, in a world where cruise missiles were not even a twinkle in an aerospace engineer's eye yet, where the supposed replacement for the B-52 (the B-58 Hustler) had become a laughable failure, where the USA had been humiliated before the world by the shooting down of another "impossible-to-hit" aircraft, needed an answer that promised no more failures before their aging B-52s went beyond their service lives (8). They needed the B-1. Carter's cancellation of the B-1 was extremely short-sighted, but to be expected at a time when the USA was in the throes of its "Vietnam Syndrome". OTOH, I don't recall Carter ever doing anything harmful to the development of the cruise missile.

8) Which they most certainly ARE for the deep penetration raids for which they were originally designed.

Why couldn't the B-70 fulfill the mission of the B-1? Why couldn't it properly replace the B-52? Ironically, it was history that showed why. It doesn't have a stealth design, it had a huge radar cross-section, huge infrared footprint, (Source-Dr.George Kistiakowsky, Science Advisor to President Eisenhower) a supersonic footprint that the Soviets could eventually (and did) learn to detect, a narrowed airframe limiting the ability for design alterations with further technological developments, and its supersonic capabilities were superfluous to the capabilities of the cruise missile.

And most of all, The B-70 Valkyrie flew like a ruptured duck below 1600 feet Good luck trying to navigate, never mind complete your mission, through storms and hills and mountains and valleys when you can't even keep the plane in the air!

 

[Michel Van]

on the SR-71 never hit remarks

the SR-71 had state of Art ECM system on board part of A-12, YF-12, SR-71 program.
BIG BLAST, it's jammed the radar guide of the S-75 SAM by transmitting false radar signal and produce a false radar image of SR-71.
CFAX, it send wrong signals to guiding system of S-27 and S-125
APR-27 react on Radar Target system and with C13 jammed enemy Radar Target signal, make unable to target the SR-71

on Mig-25 interceptor, they try to get the SR-71, but they make max mach 3.2 until there afterburning turbojets burns out.
while the SR-71 get on Mach 3.36 with there Ramjets and fly away, the Mig's getting in trouble…

So the B-1a had use the ECM system of B-52, the Rivet Ace upgrade (salvage from replaced B-52 ?)

The Phase IV ECM Defense Avionics System
AN/ALE-20 decoy flare dispenser (126 flares)
ALE-24 Chaff dispenser (1125 bundels)
AN/ALQ-153 Radar warning sensors.
AN/ALT-32H/L/28 Jammers
AN/ALR-20A & AN/ALQ-117 Enemy target Radar jammer
AN/ALQ-122 multiple false target generator
Also fit with the ADM-20-„Quail“? (4 drone that produce a false radar image of B-52)
a 20 mm M61 Vulcan cannon with AN/ALQ-153 Radar in tail section

for deep level flight it had to use the EVS system AN/ASQ-151

 

[brovane]

Not if you are coming AT them. Besides, the B-70 had a critical failing that I will mention at the end of this post.



Those SR-71s were flying at the extreme edge of Soviet airspace, traveling alongside that airspace, NOT on a direct vector to cross right into Soviet airspace. Crossing the tangent, not heading for the center of a circle. The Soviets AFAIK were NOT cleared to open fire on US SR-71s as long as they were in international airspace. So too the SR-71s were under equally strict orders to use their side-viewing cameras to view their intel targets without violating Soviet airspace. Of course, that didn't mean that occasionally the SR-71s didn't stray over the line, nor did the Soviets not try for some shots.

The problem for the Soviets wasn't the performance of their Mig-25s. It was the performance of their AA missiles at an SR-71's operational altitudes. They couldn't function properly up there. Unless Victor Belenko was lying, that is. So no matter how fast or well the Mig-25 Foxbat flew, she was essentially firing spitballs against SR-71s. That, and she had a horrendous turn radius. Not nearly as bad as the SR-71, if course.

Also, the SR-71 could see fighters approaching, and if there was any real danger, it could always abort.



Exactly. Stealth, cruise missiles, MIRVes, all contributed to making the B-70 obsolete. Frankly, after what happened to the U-2 piloted by Major Francis Gary Powers, the right decision was made.



1) The Soviet ADF =/= North Vietnam's air defenses. That's not a proper measuring stick. And if Hanoi could shoot down SR-71s, B-52s (or any other aircraft) would never survive a single sortie over the city.

2) The Soviet ADF =/= Libyan air defenses. Libya had only four missile sites in the whole country containing the S-200, the only long range AA missile system Libya had that had even a remote chance of shooting down an SR-71. Providing the aircraft got close enough, and the vertically command obsessed Soviet style missile system got the order to open fire on a target that was not attacking.

3) I'm not sure how you are going to put AA missiles on a YF-12 that can be launched at Mach 3? The B-70 had its own problems. See below.

4) You're trusting late 1950s avionics over late 1970s?

5) ....... By flying above a threat rather than below it? By dropping free-falling bombs or ASM's Major Kong-style rather than ALCM's? See below.

6) You can say that about any bomber, not just the B-70. The DISadvantage of the bomber is that in the event of a enemy strategic surprise attack most of your ICBMs and SLBMs can still be launched in time, but some 2/3rds of your bomber force will be destroyed on the ground.

7) If your bomber force has crossed enemy airspace in full force, its a safe bet that by that time you are "Game On" for DEFCON 1 Your very first targets will have already been hit by this time (coastal air defenses, interceptor bases, etc). So if its merely to be as a threat, then the bombers have to orbit outside of enemy airspace, being constantly refueled by air, and where the chances are astronomical for a miscue or miscalculation.



Shredding itself, catching fire, and melting. It was mostly done as a means of disinformation to NATO, to make them think the Mig-25 could do more than it really could. Big mistake. It convinced Congress to fund the F-series.



Into, never. Maybe if it had been around before the U-2 shootdown...



Correct. I'm pretty sure that was one of the little "understandings" the US & USSR got into after the Cuban Missile Crisis. Between Major Rudolph Anderson's U-2 being shot down over Cuba and a U-2 crossing into Soviet airspace near the same time on a mission that was supposed to be cancelled, both sides realized they couldn't control all the actions of their military forces at all times. But IDK. After Nixon and Brezhnev got in, maybe the controls were loosened...?

Finally, about the B-70's future? After the shooting down of the Powers U-2, the decision was made that missile technology would ultimately become too deadly to high flying aircraft. Future strategic bombers would have to find their way via low-level penetration, not high. In 1960, in theory, it was seen that the Missile would always be able to find the Bomber. This was the inversion of the pre-WWII concept that "the bomber would always get through". But the missile was seen as much more formidable. Anti-missile ECM and ECCM were in their infancy at the time, and missiles required neither pilots nor oxygen nor were they constrained much by g-forces.

The 1960 US Air Force, in a world where cruise missiles were not even a twinkle in an aerospace engineer's eye yet, where the supposed replacement for the B-52 (the B-58 Hustler) had become a laughable failure, where the USA had been humiliated before the world by the shooting down of another "impossible-to-hit" aircraft, needed an answer that promised no more failures before their aging B-52s went beyond their service lives (8). They needed the B-1. Carter's cancellation of the B-1 was extremely short-sighted, but to be expected at a time when the USA was in the throes of its "Vietnam Syndrome". OTOH, I don't recall Carter ever doing anything harmful to the development of the cruise missile.

8) Which they most certainly ARE for the deep penetration raids for which they were originally designed.

Why couldn't the B-70 fulfill the mission of the B-1? Why couldn't it properly replace the B-52? Ironically, it was history that showed why. It doesn't have a stealth design, it had a huge radar cross-section, huge infrared footprint, (Source-Dr.George Kistiakowsky, Science Advisor to President Eisenhower) a supersonic footprint that the Soviets could eventually (and did) learn to detect, a narrowed airframe limiting the ability for design alterations with further technological developments, and its supersonic capabilities were superfluous to the capabilities of the cruise missile.

And most of all, The B-70 Valkyrie flew like a ruptured duck below 1600 feet Good luck trying to navigate, never mind complete your mission, through storms and hills and mountains and valleys when you can't even keep the plane in the air!

The YF-12 launched a AA at Mach 3.2 at 74,000 feet. The missiles where kept inside of the aircraft until launch. Not sure how you are so confused about this. You are also trying to compare the vulnerability of a aircraft flying mach 3+ at over 70,000 feet to a subsonic aircraft flying at over 70,000 that is a whole world of difference. The canceling of the B-70 was one of the worse decisions by Robert McNamara. The B-70's performance below 1600 feet is irrelevant to this discussion. Also to have a realistic chance of intercepting a Mach 3+ aircraft you have to have a missile that flies at over mach 6+ and to deploy enough of them to make a difference. As far as surprise attack's SAC deliberately stationed it's bomber bases deep in the United States and had procedures for quickly launching bombers if necessary. During a surprise attack some bombers will get hit on the ground but enough of them to make a difference. A single bomber can drop a lot more bomb's than a ICBM over a wider area.

 

[brovane]

I'm not sure where you are getting your facts about the SR-71 flying into heavily defended Soviet airspace.

I never said that. I said Heavily Defended Air Space.

 

[brovane]

The SR71 had over 1000 SAMs fired at it during it's career but was never hit, however as others have pointed out it never went deep into the Soviet Union and into the heart of the SA5 envelope.

The recon versions of the Mig25 did hit Mach 3.2 but landed with burnt out engines, a more realistic speed for a recon plane was Mach 2.8 or so. An interceptor with missiles could only do Mach 2.6 at best, which on the face of it appears woefully inadequate to intercept an SR71. However it wouldn't a Mig 25, it would bea flight or even a squadron taking on the job and in the mid 80s a flight of 4 Mig25s got into intercept positions that their target SR71 couldn't have escaped from if they attacked.

Whether this sort of tactic would be viable against hundreds of B70s is a bit more questionable. But this and the SA5 thinning out the B70s would have caused SAC and the US cause for concern over which of their nukes would actually make it.

As for the B1A/B, I'll take half and half thanks; 122 B1As in the late 70s and 122 B1Bs in the late 80s.

If you are saying a B-70 cannot make it to it's targets in Soviet AirSpace a B-1A/B stands no-chance.

Also even the SA5 would be very questionable against the B-70. Do even start achieving a 25% kill success rate with a SAM you need to double the speed of your target. The first version of the SA-5 only had speeds of around Mach 4.5. The missile has to climb to altitude over 70,000 feet and then get into position for intercept. The problem is that as a missiles takes a lot of energy to climb to altitude which drops the overall range down significantly. The other problem with missiles is that they require control surfaces to maneuver. The problem is that at high altitude the small control surfaces are not very effective on missiles however aircraft (Especially as large as the B-70) have much large control surfaces and maintain maneuverability better at high altitudes that missiles.

 

[Michel Van]

on usertron2020 remark

They needed the B-1. Carter's cancellation of the B-1 was extremely short-sighted

It was not Short sighted, it was a Political gamble with Soviets
Carter try a good will gesture to Soviet for Strategic Arms Limitation Talks II, with success

behind the US scene thing were very different,
The MX & The Midgetman ICBM program running on high gear, had becoming Mobil land ICBM
The Trident SLBM made first test launch
The Lockheed Have Blue prototype fly, what let to F-117 and B-2
and the Cruise Missile AGM-86 ALCM went in servis (more on that below in Text)
The AGM-86 was a game changer, the B-52H/G not need fly over target, but just release the Cruise Missile 1100 km away from it.
increasing the survivability considerable

With all this system, the B-1a became a obsolete concept.
but with Top secret on those program, Carter got bad position in US inland Politic and help Ronald Reagan to defend the B-1a (not knowing what happen behind the scene)
as Reagan became president, hell must be surprised seeing that stuff !
but sadly he was not for political status quo, He was out to destroy the Empire of evil: the Soviet union
so the order the B-1 production, luck someone at SAC demand improvements on systems with new technology
there were victims on way like the original MX mobil concept and the Midgetman ICBM

The 1960 US Air Force, in a world where cruise missiles were not even a twinkle in an aerospace engineer's eye yet

DoD and the Cruise Missile

in World war one, the US Army invent the first Cruise Missile, the Germans saw the concept and refined it to the V1,
was the US Army took as booty home after WW2
soon after war FORD aeronautic build US version of V1
between 1945 and 1948 they had 21 different guided missile projects including would-be cruise missiles in R&D
but only four went in production: the SSM-N-8 Regulus missile, the SM-62 Snark the MGM-1 Matador and the AGM-28 Hound Dog for B-52

in same time there were on R&D on mother of all Cruise Missile: SLAM/Project PLUTO

A gigantic Cruise Missile with a nuclear powered ramjet engines that strafing at Mach 3 and "delivers" up to 24 hydrogen bomb on targets.

Unlucky or Lucky, Robert McNamara pull the plug out PLUTO project in July, 1964. before the first flyable Prototype is build
USAF salvage allot of SLAM/Project PLUTO hardware, like it's flight computer who was refined for later AGM-86 ALCM.

 

[Panica]

ALCM vs. SLBM vs. ICBM

Well one of the reasons for keeping bombers which you can recall.
But. ALCM loaded B-1 Would be much better.
For few reasons. Once thinks get hotter bombers cruise along the borders.
Once it goes defcon 1. ALCMs have far higher probability of leak USSR air defence.

If they are stealth and fats (LIKE 2.0) YOu can think even as pre-emptive measures.

FB-111 Could do job nicely. Better engines more fuel.
Or F-15s modified for doing so. Like Cranked Delta wings..

 

[Riain]

If you are saying a B-70 cannot make it to it's targets in Soviet AirSpace a B-1A/B stands no-chance.

Also even the SA5 would be very questionable against the B-70. Do even start achieving a 25% kill success rate with a SAM you need to double the speed of your target. The first version of the SA-5 only had speeds of around Mach 4.5. The missile has to climb to altitude over 70,000 feet and then get into position for intercept. The problem is that as a missiles takes a lot of energy to climb to altitude which drops the overall range down significantly. The other problem with missiles is that they require control surfaces to maneuver. The problem is that at high altitude the small control surfaces are not very effective on missiles however aircraft (Especially as large as the B-70) have much large control surfaces and maintain maneuverability better at high altitudes that missiles.

IIUC the B1A would have conducted a hi-lo-hi mission profile rather than the B58 high level dash. The B1B refined this by improving the low level performance at the expense of the high.

As for the SA5, while the 1966 version of the missile may have struggled with the B70 the 1970 version would have been much more comfortable and later versions more comfortable again, giving the B70 a perilously short service life.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

The SR71 had over 1000 SAMs fired at it during it's career but was never hit, however as others have pointed out it never went deep into the Soviet Union and into the heart of the SA5 envelope.

The recon versions of the Mig25 did hit Mach 3.2 but landed with burnt out engines, a more realistic speed for a recon plane was Mach 2.8 or so. An interceptor with missiles could only do Mach 2.6 at best, which on the face of it appears woefully inadequate to intercept an SR71. However it wouldn't a Mig 25, it would bea flight or even a squadron taking on the job and in the mid 80s a flight of 4 Mig25s got into intercept positions that their target SR71 couldn't have escaped from if they attacked.

Whether this sort of tactic would be viable against hundreds of B70s is a bit more questionable. But this and the SA5 thinning out the B70s would have caused SAC and the US cause for concern over which of their nukes would actually make it.

IIRC allegedly it were six MiG-31's who managed to intercept a single SR-71 in '86 over the Barents Sea. see here for a discussion:
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?34722-Did-the-Russians-ever-come-close-to-shooting-SR-71-Blackbird

In the case of the USSR facing hundreds of more capable B-70s I doubt they would have 6x as many MiG-31's available to face those.

It was not Short sighted, it was a Political gamble with Soviets
Carter try a good will gesture to Soviet for Strategic Arms Limitation Talks II, with success

Wait, voluntarily reducing one's own weaponry before actually finalising negotiations in talks to reduce one's weaponry on a tit-for-tat base with the Soviets?
Would you care to explain how that has successfully worked?

IIRC people who had experience with negotiating with the Soviets said their general point of view was "what's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable".
Scrapping weaponssystems beforehand seems counterproductive.

IIUC the B1A would have conducted a hi-lo-hi mission profile rather than the B58 high level dash. The B1B refined this by improving the low level performance at the expense of the high.

As for the SA5, while the 1966 version of the missile may have struggled with the B70 the 1970 version would have been much more comfortable and later versions more comfortable again, giving the B70 a perilously short service life.

The Libyans fired bucketloads of SA-5's at the SR-71 without any results.
Although later SA-5's would have been improved; so would the ECM and other systems on the B-70.

If you are saying a B-70 cannot make it to it's targets in Soviet AirSpace a B-1A/B stands no-chance.

Also even the SA5 would be very questionable against the B-70. Do even start achieving a 25% kill success rate with a SAM you need to double the speed of your target. The first version of the SA-5 only had speeds of around Mach 4.5. The missile has to climb to altitude over 70,000 feet and then get into position for intercept. The problem is that as a missiles takes a lot of energy to climb to altitude which drops the overall range down significantly. The other problem with missiles is that they require control surfaces to maneuver. The problem is that at high altitude the small control surfaces are not very effective on missiles however aircraft (Especially as large as the B-70) have much large control surfaces and maintain maneuverability better at high altitudes that missiles.

Apart from that the interception range of a ground to air missile sytem is shaped like half a globe; it could on paper reach it's maximum altitude, however, that's only directly above it's launching spot. It's maximum range will only be achievable at an optimum altitude.
So the apparent premium of a missile against a bomber isn't as clear-cut as it seems.

Considering that the SR-71 made bucketloads of flights above Libya, Indo-China, China, Middle-East/North-Africa etc. - whilst on paper being within easy range of SA-5 and other missiles - and it's losses were pretty much negligible in 30+ years of service and 3.500+ flights that point is IMHO rather proven.

 

[brovane]

IIUC the B1A would have conducted a hi-lo-hi mission profile rather than the B58 high level dash. The B1B refined this by improving the low level performance at the expense of the high.

As for the SA5, while the 1966 version of the missile may have struggled with the B70 the 1970 version would have been much more comfortable and later versions more comfortable again, giving the B70 a perilously short service life.

Why do you say the 1970 or later version would have had a easier time intercepting a B-70?

 

[fscott]

The YF-12 launched a AA at Mach 3.2 at 74,000 feet. The missiles where kept inside of the aircraft until launch. Not sure how you are so confused about this. You are also trying to compare the vulnerability of a aircraft flying mach 3+ at over 70,000 feet to a subsonic aircraft flying at over 70,000 that is a whole world of difference. The canceling of the B-70 was one of the worse decisions by Robert McNamara. The B-70's performance below 1600 feet is irrelevant to this discussion. Also to have a realistic chance of intercepting a Mach 3+ aircraft you have to have a missile that flies at over mach 6+ and to deploy enough of them to make a difference. As far as surprise attack's SAC deliberately stationed it's bomber bases deep in the United States and had procedures for quickly launching bombers if necessary. During a surprise attack some bombers will get hit on the ground but enough of them to make a difference. A single bomber can drop a lot more bomb's than a ICBM over a wider area.

Not to mention at the time about 1/3 of the bombers were air born at any given moment.

 

[Bob in Pittsburgh]

The B-1 in any variant was obsolete from the beginning. Land based strategic bombers, either American or Soviet, were the 1980 equivalent of cavalry in World War I.

 

[Riain]

Why do you say the 1970 or later version would have had a easier time intercepting a B-70?

Because the performance improved in successive version of the SA5, so much so that later versions look different than the early versions. In contrast the B70 is butting hard up against the limits of practicality when it comes to long range, high performance flight and doesn't have the performance growth potential that the SA5 had.

 

[Blue cat]

Wasn't the B-1A supposed to rely heavily on ECM and active countermeasures (flares, chaff, etc.) to penetrate Soviet airspace? I know the B-1B has some rather impressive systems for that, but I'm not sure how much of that was going to be on the production B-1A as opposed to being developed later on for the B-1B. I think the B-1A was also supposed to penetrate Soviet airspace at low altitudes, then do a supersonic dash once safe to do so.

I wonder why they didn't pursue more of a hybrid approach for SAC. One of the roles proposed for the F-108 was serving as an escort for the B-70, guarding it against air attack and punching a hole through the Soviet air defense network that the strategic bombers could pass through. I wonder why an FB-111 or F-15E couldn't have been used in a similar role? Are air attack corridors that recent a concept? It's standard doctrine nowadays (my father helped plan air campaigns while in the USAF), but it seems after the @950s SAC planned for the strategic bombers to perform their missions (or at least the strategic ones) without escorts or the creation of air attack corridors.

My understanding is that the 4th B1A prototype had various defensive systems installed and was tested to some extent in the low level penetration role.

With regards to the attack corridor concept, my understanding is that SAC envisioned using nuclear weapons delivered by missiles (including SRAMs fired from the bombers themselves) to suppress the defences so that bombers could drop gravity bombs on their targets. Some of these gravity bombs were apparently intended to be Nine Megaton B53 bombs which as far as I know could not be carried by the B1 (they were carried by the B52) so I suspect the plans to suppress the defences of these targets were fairly well thought out if SAC expected a B52 to be able to fly over them.

In a time line where the B1A was funded by the Carter administration we might not have seen the ALCM put into production as it was in our time line which may resulted in other ripple effects.

My $.02 worth if the B1A had been put into production the low level role would have been emphasised and the high level role would have been largely ignored. I agree with the comments made by other posters about the likely fatigue issues, but some of the B1As might have been rebuilt later into something resembling a B1B.

 

[brovane]

Because the performance improved in successive version of the SA5, so much so that later versions look different than the early versions. In contrast the B70 is butting hard up against the limits of practicality when it comes to long range, high performance flight and doesn't have the performance growth potential that the SA5 had.

What are those improved performance statistics?

 

[Dayton Kitchens]

The ability of SAMs and interceptors to attack aircraft cruising at above 80,000 feet and at more than Mach 3 was always way overestimated.

With the B-70 or SR-71 you're talking about the penetrating aircraft having a head start of about 15 miles even if they are overflying the launch site. A lead of more than 40 miles is probably more likely. A Mach 4.5 missile fired at a Mach 3 aircraft means the SAM would be fully 200 seconds away from the the target (about three and a half minutes) meaning that interception was very unlikely.

The SR-71 was never (or rarely) sent directly over Soviet airspace for

1) Political reasons. Huge storm if one was shot down or (more likely) went down in Soviet territory due to mechanical problems.

2) Security reasons. Loss of technical secrets if the above happened.

3) Unnecessary. Flying along Soviet borders at more than 80,000 feet made it unnecessary to actually overfly Soviet airspace.

Like building a 20 foot high tower in your backyard to spy on your neighbors. You don't have to be over your neighbors yards to see everything that goes on.

 

[Gunnarnz]

With the B-70 or SR-71 you're talking about the penetrating aircraft having a head start of about 15 miles even if they are overflying the launch site. A lead of more than 40 miles is probably more likely. A Mach 4.5 missile fired at a Mach 3 aircraft means the SAM would be fully 200 seconds away from the the target (about three and a half minutes) meaning that interception was very unlikely.

Sorry, I'm a bit confused here. Why are we assuming the SAM site will wait and only shoot when the aircraft is directly overhead? Wouldn't it be a better idea to launch the missile before the aircraft arrives, so it has time to get put on an intercept course?
They're going to have raid warning, unless we're assuming the USSR has politely turned all it's radars off, so they'll know the bomber is coming and it's rough route. At that point it's a matter of ballistics to put a missile into the same airspace. Perhaps the missile would need to be launched well in advance if it's slow, but it's hardly impossible. After all, the missile doesn't have to get all that close to the target - SAMs can have nuclear warheads, just like the bomber does.

Since everyone is saying that it is impossible to intercept a high-speed aircraft with a SAM then I get the feeling I must be missing something. Could someone please explain the problem in simple terms?

 

[Just Leo]

Sorry, I'm a bit confused here.

Since everyone is saying that it is impossible to intercept a high-speed aircraft with a SAM then I get the feeling I must be missing something. Could someone please explain the problem in simple terms?

I share your confusion,as do most western air powers, who adopted the low level penetration philosophy. Stupid air powers. What do they know?

 

[brovane]

Sorry, I'm a bit confused here. Why are we assuming the SAM site will wait and only shoot when the aircraft is directly overhead? Wouldn't it be a better idea to launch the missile before the aircraft arrives, so it has time to get put on an intercept course?
They're going to have raid warning, unless we're assuming the USSR has politely turned all it's radars off, so they'll know the bomber is coming and it's rough route. At that point it's a matter of ballistics to put a missile into the same airspace. Perhaps the missile would need to be launched well in advance if it's slow, but it's hardly impossible. After all, the missile doesn't have to get all that close to the target - SAMs can have nuclear warheads, just like the bomber does.

Since everyone is saying that it is impossible to intercept a high-speed aircraft with a SAM then I get the feeling I must be missing something. Could someone please explain the problem in simple terms?

The SAM battery doesn't have to wait to launch until the aircraft is directly over-head. However a bomber for example will have all the radar's plotted out and based on Fire control radar signature the ECM officer will also have the expected areas of danger. So the bomber itself will work to avoid those areas of concern. Also when you are shooting at aircraft at over 70,000 feet your range on your SAM goes down considerably because you have to expend a lot of energy to get up that high. Also a bomber can fairly easy shootback at the offending SAM site. In a nuclear conflict dropping a 100kiloton nuke on the SAM site that just launched at you is great way to permantely put that site out of comission. The problem with SAM's targeting high speed and high flying aircraft is that the aircraft has a lot of warning of the launch of the SAM. Since a aircraft like the B-70 has such large control surfaces it maintains good manuevrability at high altitudes where a missile with small control surfaces suffers. So with a fair amount of time a B-70 if necessary could simply turn away from the SAM(s) and put the missiles into a tail chase which is very problematic when you are dealing with something that is travelling over 1/2 mile every second. By the time the SAM(s) get up to 70,000 feet the bomber could be miles away and now you have a missile say even at mach 5 trying to chase down a aircraft going mach 3 and you will probably run out of energy in your missile before the missile get's within range.

Now all this is kind of simple. You could work to setup SAM traps where you have a SAM battery basically launch to get the aircraft to fly in a specific direction and then a SAM battery offline try to surprise the aircraft with a launch. However all of this starts off with the same problem that the bomber is at 70,000 feet and Mach 3 and you missile starts out at 0 velocity. Now intercepts become much easier at 70,000 feet if the offending aircraft flys at sub-sonic speed. I have just seen several times people write that because of the U-2 getting shotdown this means that flying high to avoid SAM's doesnt work. My response the B-70 has a lot more performance than the U-2 and their is a huge difference between sub-sonic and Mach 3+ at 70,000+ feet. That doesn't say it is impossible to shootdown a B-70. However as a nuclear delivery Aircraft a lot of B-70's would get through any type of SAM defense from the Soviet.

 

[Dayton Kitchens]

Sorry, I'm a bit confused here. Why are we assuming the SAM site will wait and only shoot when the aircraft is directly overhead? Wouldn't it be a better idea to launch the missile before the aircraft arrives, so it has time to get put on an intercept course?
They're going to have raid warning, unless we're assuming the USSR has politely turned all it's radars off, so they'll know the bomber is coming and it's rough route. At that point it's a matter of ballistics to put a missile into the same airspace. Perhaps the missile would need to be launched well in advance if it's slow, but it's hardly impossible. After all, the missile doesn't have to get all that close to the target - SAMs can have nuclear warheads, just like the bomber does.

Since everyone is saying that it is impossible to intercept a high-speed aircraft with a SAM then I get the feeling I must be missing something. Could someone please explain the problem in simple terms?

SAMs can and have intercepted high speed aircraft.

But, SAMs have never proven reliable or deadly enough to be counted on to halt or prevent a determined bombing attack by a serious opponent.

What SAMs can do is make it too costly to use aircraft for certain missions.

In short, it just wasn't worth a 5% chance of having a recon aircraft shot down just to get some photos of a military base.

Also, what SAMs did do was make large scale bombing attacks at MEDIUM altitude to be very foolhardy. Say from 5,000 to 50,000 feet.