Bombers, Rotordynes and a fistful of Buccaneers

[Bernard Woolley]

The way to beat decoys is to take out the missile before, or shortly after it MIRVs.
One other thing I will add is that Ryan has reminded me that the source of that link was Jerome B Wiesner, someone who was staunchly against manned space-flight. When one studies historical documents always remember who they were written by and who they were intended for.

The SA-5 couldn't catch an SR-71/B-70 type target. Even today modern missiles like the S-300 can't do it and the S-400 doesn't really work.

It's quite sweet to see someone take MARVs seriously. They do exist, but they are not capable of radical maneuvering.

The problem with discussing ABM systems is that the anti-arguments are all out in the open, while the pro-arguments are hampered by secrecy. For example we can say that decoys don't work because they are obviously decoys, but we can't explain further. Why is that? Well decoy discrimination technology can also be used in things like air to air warfare and the USAF is hardly going to tell potential enemies how it can tell decoys from aircraft.

I would comment that saying ABM won't protect from x, y and z is hardly a good argument for not having it. Most body armour won't protect against anything larger than around 5.56mm, but I don't see a lot of people saying that soldiers, or police officers shouldn't wear it. Moreover if ABM is indeed destabilising then surely defensive fighters are too? After all they reduce the chances of a nuclear armed bomber from reaching its target, and SSNs and ASW frigates are too because they can potentially kill the SSBN.

Considering ABM on its own is not all that helpful. If a country was to have a full system then it would be part of a layered defence against attack, not a stand-alone system.

There is a good article on MRVs, MIRVs and MARVs here: http://www.tboverse.us/HPCAFORUM/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=70.

 

[Bernard Woolley]

I'm going to resist the urge to say any more on ABM because I think it is taking this threat off topic.
To try and get back on topic I will mention one advantage that bombers have over missiles - they can be recalled and they can be re-targeted. Once launched an ICBM, or SLBM can't be called back, or re-targeted. It will fly either until it reaches its target, or some outside force steps in to stop it.

I will posit one question. What would have been more useful to the UK over the last 30 years and especially post 9/11, a force of dual-capable RAF bombers, or four RN SSBNs?

 

[Mote]

The way to beat decoys is to take out the missile before, or shortly after it MIRVs.

Which requires an interception in the boost-phase which is technically possible, but is so absurdly expensive to do that it is effectively impossible. Even the technically possible gets removed if you release the RVs while still in the upper reaches of the atmosphere (technically possible, never done since it's only beneficial if someone is trying for such).

One other thing I will add is that Ryan has reminded me that the source of that link was Jerome B Wiesner, someone who was staunchly against manned space-flight. When one studies historical documents always remember who they were written by and who they were intended for.

True, but that devolves to an ad hominem attack in the absence of evidence that they have misportrayed things. One can have very good reasons, after all, for opposing manned space flight and that doesn't mean that they're shading the truth or cherry-picking facts.

The SA-5 couldn't catch an SR-71/B-70 type target. Even today modern missiles like the S-300 can't do it and the S-400 doesn't really work.

Could, can, and does. Not to mention things that are manifestly capable of so doing like the R-500 which, had the US gone with the B-70, are likely to be built.

It's quite sweet to see someone take MARVs seriously. They do exist, but they are not capable of radical maneuvering.

Depends entirely on the MARV. A Pershing II style MARV, of course not. An HGV is however.

The problem with discussing ABM systems is that the anti-arguments are all out in the open, while the pro-arguments are hampered by secrecy. For example we can say that decoys don't work because they are obviously decoys, but we can't explain further. Why is that? Well decoy discrimination technology can also be used in things like air to air warfare and the USAF is hardly going to tell potential enemies how it can tell decoys from aircraft.

Except of course that there are plenty of open-source arguments, both pro and con, about the feasibility of decoys. One might also consider that the USAF currently has chaff and penaids on its LGM-30 force to go against the A-135 system. Personally, I don't think that arguments based on "Well, all the information supporting my position is classified" is really that good of an argument. It allows you to imply whatever figments you wish, without the burden of actually proving anything, and of course is readily defeated by the fact that all the information that counters your information is also classified

I would comment that saying ABM won't protect from x, y and z is hardly a good argument for not having it. Most body armour won't protect against anything larger than around 5.56mm, but I don't see a lot of people saying that soldiers, or police officers shouldn't wear it.

Correct, but up to 5.56mm means it protects against the majority of the threats faced and body armor is rather cheap, all things considered. An ABM system, however, is catastrophically unable to deal with the only attack that matters, a large scale countervalue attack, and is extremely expensive.

Moreover if ABM is indeed destabilising then surely defensive fighters are too? After all they reduce the chances of a nuclear armed bomber from reaching its target, and SSNs and ASW frigates are too because they can potentially kill the SSBN.

By definition that which is already extant cannot be destabilizing towards that which is new.

Considering ABM on its own is not all that helpful. If a country was to have a full system then it would be part of a layered defence against attack, not a stand-alone system.

Said layered system is preemptive strike followed by handling an uncoordinated and diminished retaliatory response (ideally, though one suspects a coordinated launch under warning policy in the face of an effective ABM system).

I'm going to resist the urge to say any more on ABM because I think it is taking this threat off topic.
To try and get back on topic I will mention one advantage that bombers have over missiles - they can be recalled and they can be re-targeted. Once launched an ICBM, or SLBM can't be called back, or re-targeted. It will fly either until it reaches its target, or some outside force steps in to stop it.

I'll be making this my last post on the subject in this thread as well, but bombers are recallable only so long as you manage to maintain secure radio communication with them and recall or retarget is provided for in their orders (which may very well say "Ignore anything that says it is a recall message" to prevent an enemy trick). And if you don't want to nuke something, why're you sending out the bombers in the first place? The adoption of cruise missiles by bombers also nullifies this argument since such weapons cannot be recalled once launched from hundreds of miles out.

I will posit one question. What would have been more useful to the UK over the last 30 years and especially post 9/11, a force of dual-capable RAF bombers, or four RN SSBNs?

In the context of the Cold War? Either no nuclear retaliatory force or the SSBNs. Had things gone hot the V-bombers wouldn't have been used in conventional warfare and as a retaliatory force they were extremely vulnerable to destruction on the ground by Soviet MRBMs. Truthfully, the British would have been even better off with no nuclear retaliatory force and instead putting the money into a more credible conventional military force (or just saying screw it and building up British Rail).

 

[Winston Smith]

That essay was very infomative Jan. I am of the opinion that a fleet of RAF bombers in a dual role would be much more useful then our Vanguard SSBNs. The USAF uses its B2s and its B52s in the conventional, and both of those aircraft form part of the nuclear triad.

 

[Bernard Woolley]

Sending out the bombers to their Fail Safe points send a very strong message of resolve. It gives both sides a chance to talk and for saner heads to prevail.

Vulnerability to MRBM attack was why in a crisis the V-bomber force would have been dispersed across the UK. It was also why the force was trained to get airborne within 4-6 minutes, the time it would take Soviet missiles to arrive. Makes SAC's QRA response look glacial by comparison.

At least one aviation historian has claimed in a book on the Vulcan that it would have been cheaper for the UK to take up JFK on his offer to give us Skybolt. IMVHO the proposed Vulcan B.3 would have been a better investment than the R class SSBNs, but that's only with hindsight.
However the history of the Cold War does demonstrate that the RAF was prepared to deploy its bombers away from QRA duty. For example during the Indonesian Confrontation Victor B.1As were deployed to Singapore, while Vulcans were deployed to RAF Gan.

In the post-Cold War world a bomber capable of carrying a good load of 'iron bombs', PGMs and ALCMs would have been very useful to us. Just look at how the USAF bomber force has been used.

 

[Winston Smith]

Precisly. A bomber would be far more useful. If I remember correctly, V-Force was funded out of the entire MOD budget, whereas the SSBNs are budgeted out of the RN budget.

 

[Bernard Woolley]

That's correct, IIRC. Both the Polaris and Trident force have significantly distorted the RN's budget.
There is also one other advantage, Scottish politics won't be as distorted by the Polaris/Trident issue.

 

[Winston Smith]

In this situation, without the problems Trident/Polaris brought, would it be safe to say the RN would be bigger, even under the current budjet? And want would a modern RAF bomber look like?

 

[Bernard Woolley]

Not too sure. I think that they would get four extra SSNs in the '60s. In the '80s without Trident we could see more Type 23 frigates ordered and a couple of LPHs. There are a few other things from the '80s that might not have been cancelled too.
It would be interesting to find out just how much the RN spent on the procurement and support of the SSBN fleet. Obviously some of that money would still be spent on supporting the SSN fleet, but we could probably work out just how much would be freed up.

It's more than likely that the Vulcan Phase 6/B.3 would still be in service in 2010. The current debate over the replacement of Trident would probably be about what to replace the Vulcan/Skybolt combination with.

 

[Winston Smith]

That would have been nice. I have always been a bit of a RN fanatic. And I bet the Afgan War would have been easier with a fleet of bombers for air support.

 

[Riain]

I'm as romantic as the next bloke, but the V bombers were more vulnerable to a first strike than SSBNs and throughout their service lives the warheads of the SLBMs had a much greater chance of hitting their targets than bomber bombs or missiles. So in their deterrent role the SSBNs were awesome.

 

[Bernard Woolley]

True, they are excellent second-strike platforms, but they're not a lot of use for anything else. They are now rather more vulnerable since Nimrod has gone.
With the dispersal plan and QRA procedures I believe that a significant proportion of any bomber force would get airborne and reach their targets.

An interesting factoid is that apparently we targeted all of our Polaris missiles on Moscow in the belief that losing it would have the same effect on the USSR as losing London would be on the UK. I'm presuming that was the national targeting plan as the Polaris force was declared to NATO and was included in versions of the US SIOP, as the bombers had been before it.

If the balloon had gone up in 1962 then RAF bombers would have been amongst the first NATO nuclear platforms to reach targets in the USSR, just after the small US missile force. In that situation it is likely, though not known for sure, that the Vulcans and Victors would be targeted on the infrastructure of the PVO to help clear the way for SAC's B-47s and B-52s.

The Skybolt missile was effectively an air launched IRBM, so it managed to combine the advantages of both bomber and missile.

 

[Riain]

Precisly. A bomber would be far more useful. If I remember correctly, V-Force was funded out of the entire MOD budget, whereas the SSBNs are budgeted out of the RN budget.

Polaris was also funded out of a tri-service 'strategic' vote. It was Trident that distorted the RNs budget.

 

[Riain]

True, they are excellent second-strike platforms, but they're not a lot of use for anything else. They are now rather more vulnerable since Nimrod has gone.
With the dispersal plan and QRA procedures I believe that a significant proportion of any bomber force would get airborne and reach their targets.

An interesting factoid is that apparently we targeted all of our Polaris missiles on Moscow in the belief that losing it would have the same effect on the USSR as losing London would be on the UK. I'm presuming that was the national targeting plan as the Polaris force was declared to NATO and was included in versions of the US SIOP, as the bombers had been before it.

If the balloon had gone up in 1962 then RAF bombers would have been amongst the first NATO nuclear platforms to reach targets in the USSR, just after the small US missile force. In that situation it is likely, though not known for sure, that the Vulcans and Victors would be targeted on the infrastructure of the PVO to help clear the way for SAC's B-47s and B-52s.

The Skybolt missile was effectively an air launched IRBM, so it managed to combine the advantages of both bomber and missile.

The much talked about utility of the V bombers is great but IOTL was little used, the Confrontation and Falklands. In WW3 they wouldn't have bombed the advancing Soviets, they would have been held back for nuke strikes. At best, with a turbojet Blue Steel mk 2 they would have been marginally credible until about the mid 70s, an SSBN would need to be in service by then. Ideally Britan would have SSBN, TSR2 and CVA 01 & 02s Buccaneers as it's Eurostrategic deterrent by 1975.

The Skybolt was cancelled because it had all the disadvantages of both bomber and missile such as ballistic missile innacuracy combined with bomber vulnerability to surprise attack and interception.

 

[Bernard Woolley]

I do wonder if the SR-71A was vulnerable to the likes of the SA-5, why didn't the Soviets shoot them down? They happily shot down U-2s, RB-57s and a variety of other recce aircraft. Moreover if they were also vulnerable to fighters then they would have shot them down with them too. After all the PVO happily shot down a 747 they believed was an RC-135.

It is very true that the V-bombers were not much used for much else while they were in service, however post '91 I suspect we'd have seen them do a lot more. However that is probably wishful thinking and maybe hindsight.

 

[Riain]

How often did the SR71 fly directly against the SA5? Not very often if Ben Rich is to be believed. As has been said earlier the SA5 could be developed a bit if the need arose, it's hardly worth it to develop the SA5 into a gaurunteed SR71 killer when there were only a dozen SR71s in service and they rarely did overflights of Soviet territory. This is why planes went to low level in the 60s and stealth in the 80s.

 

[Bernard Woolley]

I know I said I wasn't going to mention ABM again, but I did find this article: http://www.alternatewars.com/blog/?p=138. Since it was never tried out I don't know if it would have worked.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

How often did the SR71 fly directly against the SA5? Not very often if Ben Rich is to be believed. As has been said earlier the SA5 could be developed a bit if the need arose, it's hardly worth it to develop the SA5 into a gaurunteed SR71 killer when there were only a dozen SR71s in service and they rarely did overflights of Soviet territory. This is why planes went to low level in the 60s and stealth in the 80s.

I hope you see there's a bit of difference between an aircraft such as the B-52 going low and an aircraft such as the SR-71, which remained at high altitude for it's multiple operational careers (note the plural)?

I have Ben Rich's 'Skunk Works' (picked it up secondhand for 1 euro), but I don't remember if he said anything regarding the S-200.

the S-200 is probably almost without a chance against a SR-71.
Considering it's range is 300 km (horizontally) or 35 km altitude at a maximum of Mach 4, I think it's killzone for something travalling at the speed/altitude of a SR-71 is abysmally small. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-200_Angara/Vega/Dubna
Conclusion; even if there's a theoretical killzone for a S-200, it's all but impossible IMHO.

I conceit there's a bit of a discussion how often or not the Blackbird actually overflew Soviet territory, but it's generally known that the SR-71/A-12 made flights over Libya and North-Korea. http://www.foia.cia.gov/search.asp?pageNumber=1&freqReqRecord=a12.txt#
Check especially this mission: BX6853 19 FEBRUARY 1968, as it's map clearly shows a route straight across North-Korea.
Both of these nations had/have the S-200, so that would mean they should have been able to suprise a Blackbird and kill it.

AFAIK the chances of the S-300 versus the SR-71 aren't that much better.

I also think you're confusing the SR-71 with the A-12; there were only a dozen A-12's built, but over 30 SR-71's, although I don't know how many of those were in service at the same time.
(to clarify; with A-12 I mean the actual '60s CIA aircraft, not the A-12 Aurora)

 

[Mote]

The rather more limited SA-2 was able to get within nuclear kill range of the SR-71 and A-12 despite being at the very edge (or just beyond) of its performance envelope against it. I think it's specious to claim that a vastly more capable system would not be able to intercept.

 

[Winston Smith]

The emphasis being on "nuclear". You don't use nukes to shoot down recon flights. Is that right, Jan? Can you name a good sight with pics of the Vulcan B.3 on them?