Military tactics ( that were never developed or employed )

[Monk78]

In this thread I would like the posters to share their opinion about what air and naval tactics that could /should have been developed in the post World War II era, but were not

I’ll start
Attack helicopters can they develop some tactics to shoot down fast jets ? Esp when they are slowing down to release their ordinance/ bombs ?

Torpedo boats postww2 can they work synergistically with FAC/ missile boats to conducts attacks on larger warships like destroyers?

 

[Monk78]

Large scale of air to air missiles by larger aircraft like strategic bombers , MPA , recon planes and transport planes
Can the IR /SARH missiles be slaved to a IRST / radar aboard the plane perhaps rear facing so it can target attacking fighters esp at a time before all aspect AAMs

And if this is a dumb idea ( I suspect it is ) please elaborate why

 

[Juumanistra]

Large scale of air to air missiles by larger aircraft like strategic bombers , MPA , recon planes and transport planes
Can the IR /SARH missiles be slaved to a IRST / radar aboard the plane perhaps rear facing so it can target attacking fighters esp at a time before all aspect AAMs

And if this is a dumb idea ( I suspect it is ) please elaborate why it is

It could be, but if you're arming your most of your non-combatants with AAMs, then you've already lost control of the skies to the point they shouldn't be flying in the first place.

Now, turning a strategic bomber into a missile bus? There's a decent use of the idea, assuming your AAM of choice has enough stand-off capability to not endanger the bomber itself. Oh, my beloved B-1R, one day your time will come. ...until NGAP turns even more heads, at any rate.

 

[Monk78]

It could be, but if you're arming your most of your non-combatants with AAMs, then you've already lost control of the skies to the point they shouldn't be flying in the first place.

Now, turning a strategic bomber into a missile bus? There's a decent use of the idea, assuming your AAM of choice has enough stand-off capability to not endanger the bomber itself. Oh, my beloved B-1R, one day your time will come. ...until NGAP turns even more heads, at any rate.

Maybe overwing carriage of AAMs ? Like on multiple launchers
Will this enable them to avoid the heat signature from the bombers engine ?

 

[Giant Man Eating Rabbits]

Large scale of air to air missiles by larger aircraft like strategic bombers , MPA , recon planes and transport planes
Can the IR /SARH missiles be slaved to a IRST / radar aboard the plane perhaps rear facing so it can target attacking fighters esp at a time before all aspect AAMs

And if this is a dumb idea ( I suspect it is ) please elaborate why

I was thinking about this when reading "Red Storm Rising"

I was imagining a scenario where the convoys being hammered and the Tomcats struggling with their range to intercept from the UK, the US use USN Reserve pilots to fly 24 B-1B's that are retrofitted with 22 AIM-54's (2 x 8 in rotary weapons bay and 6 in the fuselage and a Tomcat AN/AWG 9 radar in the nose. The aircraft would still based in the US and not moved to Europe in case the Soviets thought it was a prelude to a nuclear strike.

The USN Reserve pilots are used as to not alert the Soviets of the upcoming operation which using Tomcat pilots would!

When a raid was detected the B1B's would fly out in two waves with a gap of thirty minutes on an intercept course. The first wave to mallet the Backfires and the second wave to either pick off any survivors or to mallet the Badgers each double tapping each target.

Although it's a fictional scenario, would that suffice?

 

[mtpalmer1]

The aircraft would still based in the US

Surely Tu-22M raids would be occurring between Iceland, Scotland & Norway? By the time your notional B-1B interceptors had launched from CONUS(!), utilized their on-demand, pre-positioned(!) tanker assets to top-up after their supersonic trans-Atlantic haul and reached the engagement zone, the Backfire crews would be on their twelfth vodka or so. It's a long way back to hold a QRA!

You certainly wouldn't have time to hold back a second wave! Unless they are for the rapid deployment of life-boats?

I'd deploy them to Machrihanish and let the Soviets whistle dixie about how it looks!

 

[Orcbuster]

Yeah no interceptors based in CONUS to cover GIUK is not viable.

 

[butch4343]

I was thinking about this when reading "Red Storm Rising"

I was imagining a scenario where the convoys being hammered and the Tomcats struggling with their range to intercept from the UK, the US use USN Reserve pilots to fly 24 B-1B's that are retrofitted with 22 AIM-54's (2 x 8 in rotary weapons bay and 6 in the fuselage and a Tomcat AN/AWG 9 radar in the nose. The aircraft would still based in the US and not moved to Europe in case the Soviets thought it was a prelude to a nuclear strike.

The USN Reserve pilots are used as to not alert the Soviets of the upcoming operation which using Tomcat pilots would!

When a raid was detected the B1B's would fly out in two waves with a gap of thirty minutes on an intercept course. The first wave to mallet the Backfires and the second wave to either pick off any survivors or to mallet the Badgers each double tapping each target.

Although it's a fictional scenario, would that suffice?

I get this is a fictional scenario, but I think the B1B didn't enter in to service untiln1986 and it was much more badly needed in its designed role as a low level nuclear strike aircraft. Over an above this the problem I think is geography, the B1Bs are flying from where, to get into a position to intercept soviet backfires before the Soviets can launch. And ur assuming that the CVBG gets enough warning to scramble the B1s. That's some pretty fine timing required. Even if detected wmhow would you know where the bombers were heading? Like are they going for the CVBG, Northern Scotland, somewhere else?

 

[Jellico]

I believe that this is the "bomber" you are looking for.

General Dynamics–Grumman F-111B - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Large scale of air to air missiles by larger aircraft like strategic bombers , MPA , recon planes and transport planes
Can the IR /SARH missiles be slaved to a IRST / radar aboard the plane perhaps rear facing so it can target attacking fighters esp at a time before all aspect AAMs

And if this is a dumb idea ( I suspect it is ) please elaborate why

In any case, the enemy gets a vote. How is the big bomber not more vulnerable to return fire?

In this thread I would like the posters to share their opinion about what air and naval tactics that could /should have been developed in the post World War II era, but were not

I’ll start
Attack helicopters can they develop some tactics to shoot down fast jets ? Esp when they are slowing down to release their ordinance/ bombs ?

Torpedo boats postww2 can they work synergistically with FAC/ missile boats to conducts attacks on larger warships like destroyers?

I believe there have been attempts to put air-to-air missiles on helicopters, but you might call that optimistic. At least Sidewinders on P3s have a use case.

Torpedos are relatively slow. What benefit are they adding here? A small boat doesn't have the luxury of minutes to guide a torpedo in. Yes they let the water in where a missile is more likely to burn you out, but then look at Ikara or ASROC.

 

[Giant Man Eating Rabbits]

I get this is a fictional scenario, but I think the B1B didn't enter in to service untiln1986

The novel was released in 1986 and was set in the mid-80's.

Over an above this the problem I think is geography, the B1Bs are flying from where, to get into a position to intercept soviet backfires before the Soviets can launch.

The ROSSAT alerted the Soviets to where the convoy was in the Atlantic. The USS Narwal sub off the Kola Peninsular then alerted NATO Command that there was a raid incoming and the Cmdr and air defense staff of the USS Nimitz correctly guessed that the Badgers & Backfires would avoid the air defenses of Norway and the UK and travel over the newly captured Iceland and estimated around four hours before the attack.

it was much more badly needed in its designed role as a low level nuclear strike aircraft

Re-read my post, the novel was based on a conventional NATO/WARPAC conflict. As I stated if B1B's were moved to Europe this might indicate to the Soviets that they were expected to be used as nuke carriers.

Even if detected wmhow would you know where the bombers were heading? Like are they going for the CVBG, Northern Scotland, somewhere else?

Re-read my post above.

 

[jlckansas]

On demand naval mines. Figure out a way to make them set on the sea floor until you need to turn them on and arm them. If you could figure out a deep water version that you could lay and then let it float up while tethered to the sea floor to a appropriate distance from the surface.

Alternate version would be a missile armed version of a CAPTOR mine. Have something that, if triggered, would pop up close to the surface and release a Anti Ship Missile at a target.

 

[Captain Jack]

On demand naval mines. Figure out a way to make them set on the sea floor until you need to turn them on and arm them. If you could figure out a deep water version that you could lay and then let it float up while tethered to the sea floor to a appropriate distance from the surface.

Navies would definitely love this. The issue, as I see it, is how do you communicate with the mine? Modern mines can already have a dormant mode, but all modern command mines are physically linked back to the command station by cable. Not sure how you get around that problem.

That said, imagine combining this with mobile mines. Lay a bunch of mines in secret in deep water or somewhere they won’t be found. Then, if war breaks out, activate them to automatically swim into position in enemy waters.

Alternate version would be a missile armed version of a CAPTOR mine. Have something that, if triggered, would pop up close to the surface and release an Anti Ship Missile at a target.

This seems perfectly doable given the existence of submarine launched missiles, but I don’t really see a scenario where it’s better than a standard CAPTOR mine. If a target is close enough that the mine’s sensors can identify it and target it with a weapon, what value do you get from the missile’s speed and range?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

The issue with the “B-1B with AAMs” is that it would be the 1980s, when they were all dedicated to strategic nuclear missions. Taking them off that is a big disadvantage to the US, as well as a potentially disastrous signal to the Soviets when 24 of them take off towards the USSR. One can’t take the nuclear element out of World War Three, even in a Tom Clancy universe where there is always a thumb on the scales against them.

What would be slightly less dangerous is use of the B-52Gs of the 69th BS from Loring AFB in Maine, which had been used to operate with Harpoons from 1983; however, B-52s from Loring were still engaged in nuclear alert posture, so there is both a reason that they may be better used for that and a chance that the Soviets would get the wrong message from it.

I would also suggest that the use of USN reserve pilots to fly 4 engine supersonic bombers might be a bit out of their role and training; and that modifying up to a quarter of the USAF’s most modern nuclear bomber for a non-nuclear mission isn’t really a starter.

The idea of a bomber or multi engined aircraft operating as a missile truck with a large number of AAMs isn’t an inherently bad one and has a lot in its favour, but the details of this particular situation militate against it being usefully applicable here to the extent it would be needed.

 

[mtpalmer1]

The issue with the “B-1B with AAMs” is that it would be the 1980s, when they were all dedicated to strategic nuclear missions. Taking them off that is a big disadvantage to the US, as well as a potentially disastrous signal to the Soviets when 24 of them take off towards the USSR.

I have no issue with wanting to retain them for the strategic role, that seems perfectly logical and I'm not really entirely sold on B-1B-missileers (nor am I opposed - I'm fairly agnostic) but I take issue with this "messaging" problem. This scenario is predicated on nuclear-capable Badgers and Backfires swanning about the UK & Norwegian ADZs. This scenario is predicated on an existential threat to one or more CVBGs. It suggests to me the kid-glove phase is over and the forward deployment of B-1Bs to the UK is at least as much of an equalizing as an escalatory event - provided the numbers of are of a reasonably low order. Provided they stay west of ...say... Bodo, the USSR hasn't really got an excuse for outrage.

I'm curious, at what point would you have the US stop pretending it doesn't possess strategic bombers to avoid upsetting the USSR while theirs maraud away? When the Carl Vinson has turned turtle?!

Yes, the Backfires are tactical aircraft but they are also strategic aircraft, it depends on what you load them with. I don't see why the US can't use the same loophole with equal impunity. Sauce for the goose.....

Not to mention there are already thousands of nuclear-capable aircraft in Europe already. Does it escalate the moment a F-4E or Tornado crosses into eastern Germany? I suggest that the movement of silo hatches or SSBNs would be a sign and evoke a strong, negative reaction, of course but aircraft are dual-use assets and their deployment wouldn't spark an escalation in of itself, at least until the advent of the B-2, anyway.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

I have no issue with wanting to retain them for the strategic role, that seems perfectly logical and I'm not really entirely sold on B-1B-missileers (nor am I opposed - I'm fairly agnostic) but I take issue with this "messaging" problem.

When it comes to actual strategic weapons, politicians and commanders tend to be a bit conservative to the point of hesitant. There are good reasons for that.

This scenario is predicated on nuclear-capable Badgers and Backfires swanning about the UK & Norwegian ADZs.

The circumstances of RSR saw Badgers and Backfires used against NorthLant convoys, Strike Fleet Atlantic and in the first hit on Iceland.

The chap in this thread refers to ‘convoys being hammered’.

I would say that a reasonable interpretation of that would lean towards the location of the ‘convoys’ being in the ‘New Mid Atlantic Gap’, not the UKADZ nor that of Norway.

This scenario is predicated on an existential threat to one or more CVBGs.

No, the scenario refers to convoys. The first mention of carrier battle groups in the thread prior to yours seems to be a mistake by Butch4343 as to the tactical parameters of their use.

It suggests to me the kid-glove phase is over and the forward deployment of B-1Bs to the UK is at least as much of an equalizing as an escalatory event - provided the numbers of are of a reasonably low order. Provided they stay west of ...say... Bodo, the USSR hasn't really got an excuse for outrage.

There is absolutely no reason to forward deploy an intercontinental bomber to Britain or Japan for that matter. They are solely nuclear penetrators at this time. Move them and the other side notices. When dealing with tens of thousands of strategic warheads on each side, a modicum of caution is not entirely unwise.

I'm curious, at what point would you have the US stop pretending it doesn't possess strategic bombers to avoid upsetting the USSR while theirs maraud away?

Both sides were aware of what the other had, and kept their strategic bombers for the purposes of destroying the world. Soviet Naval Aviation Badgers and Backfires aren’t the same thing as SAC, with apologies to all the US negotiators in the 1970s who tried to tie in the Backfires.

When the Carl Vinson has turned turtle?!

As USS Carl Vinson was in the Pacific Fleet from 1983, she doesn’t feature in RSR. The carriers employed for the liberation of Iceland are Nimitz, Indy, America and Saratoga, IIRC.

Yes, the Backfires are tactical aircraft but they are also strategic aircraft, it depends on what you load them with. I don't see why the US can't use the same loophole with equal impunity. Sauce for the goose.....

When it comes to strategic nuclear platforms that only have a use as such, it is wiser to be a bit careful, regardless of little aphorisms or use of ellipses.

Not to mention there are already thousands of nuclear-capable aircraft in Europe already.

But not strategic nuclear bombers such as the B-1 or Tu-160.

Does it escalate the moment a F-4E or Tornado crosses into eastern Germany?

As said above, this is something of a strawman. The point is not that a B-1 is nuclear capable, but that at this time it was nuclear only.

I suggest that the movement of silo hatches or SSBNs would be a sign and evoke a strong, negative reaction, of course but aircraft are dual-use assets and their deployment wouldn't spark an escalation in of itself, at least until the advent of the B-2, anyway.

Largely irrelevant and drifting far away from the issue. Using a B-1 as ‘VLR offensive counter air’ over convoys wouldn’t need any deployment outside of the US, but given their status as the tip of SAC’s nuclear spear (and carrying the toughest jobs of any USAF bombers assigned to SIOP missions as deep penetrators), it isn’t wise to launch a full 25% of their strength in one go in the direction of the Soviet Union.

When it comes to the end of the world, getting paranoid, aged, half drunk Sovs any more antsy than necessary is a good way to bring it about, even in Clancy’s fancy-verse.

 

[PMN1]

Well both the USA and UK had ideas for sticking long range AAM on airliners - 1957 Project Aerie in the US with 24 Eagle missiles on a C-135 and Vickers proposed a AA version of its VC-10 carrying 18 air to air versions of CF299 under the code name Red Barrel.

There was also it seems a HP proposal in 1958 to fit Thunderbolt missiles to its Victors.

 

[jlckansas]

This seems perfectly doable given the existence of submarine launched missiles, but I don’t really see a scenario where it’s better than a standard CAPTOR mine. If a target is close enough that the mine’s sensors can identify it and target it with a weapon, what value do you get from the missile’s speed and range?

You don't need to have the Missile/Mine in a direct path. You could lay where they were out of the normal lanes for sweeping, imagine a place like the English Channel or straights of Hormuz where you could lay these underwater and have them available on a timed basis after being activated. Other places might be where you have a choke point like off shore of the Panama Canal where you could lay them up the coast a bit and not directly in the path of shipping or naval vessels.

 

[Monk78]

I believe that this is the "bomber" you are looking for.

General Dynamics–Grumman F-111B - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In any case, the enemy gets a vote. How is the big bomber not more vulnerable to return fire?


I believe there have been attempts to put air-to-air missiles on helicopters, but you might call that optimistic. At least Sidewinders on P3s have a use case.

Torpedos are relatively slow. What benefit are they adding here? A small boat doesn't have the luxury of minutes to guide a torpedo in. Yes they let the water in where a missile is more likely to burn you out, but then look at Ikara or ASROC.

Regarding torpedo attack, it’s important that we remember. Most naval conflicts in history have not been battles like midway and Jutland.
A lot of action esp between nations, which do not have Bluewater navies have been in the littorals and in that scenario ( given the Cold War tech) the torpedo maybe a useful weapon

 

[Orcbuster]

On demand naval mines. Figure out a way to make them set on the sea floor until you need to turn them on and arm them. If you could figure out a deep water version that you could lay and then let it float up while tethered to the sea floor to a appropriate distance from the surface.

Alternate version would be a missile armed version of a CAPTOR mine. Have something that, if triggered, would pop up close to the surface and release a Anti Ship Missile at a target.

First has existed since post WWII. Remote controlled sea mine fields were a staple defense for a lot of installations

 

[RandomChance]

Flying boat/Sea plane jet fighters! We don’t need vulnerable runways!

(I know they were tested both in the UK and US - the Convair Sea Dart springs to mind)