How many bombers would have reached the US/USSR in a 1980s nuclear exchange?

How many bombers would have successfully reached the US/USSR in a 1980s full nuclear exchange?

It's a good question. How many? starting from there? How many would be wiped away or hampered by the electronic interference of the multiple detonations? Would ALL crews obey orders and reach targets, or some would try to land in some neutral country? Missiles are far faster than bombers. When bombers reach etheir target, they'd find huge atomic mushrooms all over, high contamination of the atmosphere and so on. How would they be expected to operate?
 
How many bombers would have successfully reached the US/USSR in a 1980s full nuclear exchange?
I seem to recall reading the U.S. expected perhaps 60 percent or so of their bombers that got off the ground to be able to drop their bombs or fire their missiles or what have you. A similar number for the USSR sounds reasonable to me.
 
It's a good question. How many? starting from there? How many would be wiped away or hampered by the electronic interference of the multiple detonations? Would ALL crews obey orders and reach targets, or some would try to land in some neutral country? Missiles are far faster than bombers. When bombers reach etheir target, they'd find huge atomic mushrooms all over, high contamination of the atmosphere and so on. How would they be expected to operate?
From published accounts I've read the USAF / SAC expected that a certain number of their bombers would be able to drop megaton or higher yield bombs on key targets deep within the USSR. Published interviews I've read spoke of missiles being used to take out defences so the bombers could reach their targets. It seems plausible to me that a certain number of bombers would have reached their targets.
 
It's a good question. How many? starting from there? How many would be wiped away or hampered by the electronic interference of the multiple detonations? Would ALL crews obey orders and reach targets, or some would try to land in some neutral country? Missiles are far faster than bombers. When bombers reach etheir target, they'd find huge atomic mushrooms all over, high contamination of the atmosphere and so on. How would they be expected to operate?

This is actually why the bombers have a chance of getting through. After a main force nuclear strike the Soviet Air Defense system is going to be severely degraded.
 
The key issue is how many bombers and interceptors are caught on the ground during a first strike. A launch on warning scenario like what would have happened with Petrov in September 1983 would have caught a high percentage of both on the ground for both sides. OTOH, if it's during a prolonged crisis where forces are on alert, more of them will be moved or sortied before the first ICBMs arrive.

I vaguely recall that a small fraction, like say 10%ish, of Soviet bombers were ready to go at any point in time and a significant number of the rest were down for maintenance, lack of crews, and other issues that would not get resolved in 48 hours.
 
In the 80s its mainly a matter bomber fired cruise missiles and not so much dumb dropping anymore. AGM-86s and KH-55s Could be fired off the coast 2400km deep into both US and Soviet territory.
 
In the 80s its mainly a matter bomber fired cruise missiles and not so much dumb dropping anymore. AGM-86s and KH-55s Could be fired off the coast 2400km deep into both US and Soviet territory.
My understating is the U.S. still planned on dropping at least a few bombs on key targets. Reportedly some 9 Megaton B53 bombs were brought back into service late in the Cold War for this purpose.
 
In the 80s its mainly a matter bomber fired cruise missiles and not so much dumb dropping anymore. AGM-86s and KH-55s Could be fired off the coast 2400km deep into both US and Soviet territory.
True but in the big scheme of things I'm doubtful the Soviet ALCM force would have made much difference.

I recall reading some speculative accounts of bombers perhaps being used to "mop up" targets that escaped the initial missle strikes. I suspect those types of attacks would likely have used bombs or short range missiles.
 
Good question. Depends upon the specific bomber from which side. I had a buddy who was a SAC B52 Crew Member. Navigator? Forgot. He told us considering the prior visits of all the ICBM MERV hits from both sides even getting to the primary target would be iffy. At this time the Commies had the most heavy AAA in the world. He told me if anybody got through they would be lucky but more unlikely to get back out. He said the sad fact was it was a SAC one way mission. Maybe 25%. Possible 50%. No more.
 

GarethC

Donor
It can go either way, really. Bomber survival is to a great deal dependent on how suppressed the air defence elements are by the first wave of missile strikes.

If SLBMs and ICBMs hit the fighter bases, the tanker bases, the air defence radars, and the major air defence command and control nodes, then the SAC wings and Long-Range Aviation regiments will find that their opposition may be fairly light - some fighters won't have been able to launch, some won't have been able to find a tanker to refuel. Some ingress routes will be without radar coverage; some filler stations may be out of the network because of damage, even though they are painting the raid aircraft, and so no fighter controller knows to vector interceptors to stop them.

If on the other hand the ballistic missiles were largely unsuccessful, due to malfunction, operator morality, enemy SSN's sinking the boomers before the ballon goes up, specops teams sabotaging or calling in air strikes on TELs, and counterforce launches destroying fixed sites before they can launch themselves, then the bombers' missions are much much harder. As I understand it, the post-Cold War analysis by the USA concluded that the Soviets planned and trained more extensively than the Americans did for the electronic battle, but their equipment and particularly their signal processing capability was inferior. Whether familiarity beats better signal processing is... something we'll never know, so write it however you like.
 
Top