Post 45: No strategic bombers and no specialized fighter aircrafts

Khanzeer

Banned
post 1945, the development of ballistic missiles is greatly advanced much more so than the OTL
so much so that by 1950 all nuclear deterrant of all major powers is solely the domain of ballistic missile forces
consequently there are no manned aircraft destined for strategic nuclear weapons

The airforces on both sides concentrate solely on tactical airforces or "frontal aviation"

so which famous /not so famous aircraft will we NOT see in the 50s,60s 70s and which ones we are more likely to see ?

How will that effect
1 postwar aviation technologically
2 air combat tactics
 
Last edited:
Assuming it did happen the no specialized fighter aircraft is more unlikely, the single purpose air superiority platform would still exist. Such a force would probably be aimed towards Low Intensity Combat given the absence of a Triad. Likewise it would probably be less advanced, beyond butterflies required, as the situation is presumably less tense on the world stage, so less money spent. Tactics, emphasis would likely be on air to mud with air to air being much more theoretical, but probably less emphasis on BVR

That said everything is completely different as this would require substantially advancing nuclear weapons technology as well as ballistic missile technology. This probably means nuclear weapons available before 1939 to get them small enough to be ballistic missile deliverable for 1945 so they can start replacing bombers within 5 years. This of course completely changes WWII and thus the postwar situation, given that WWII will either not happen or include a nuclear exchange. his produces the sorts of butterflies where we can't talk about anything more than generalities until we know how WWII went

If you had it by 1960 that could be plausible, but 1950 requires enough butterflies we can't guess what the hell happens
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Good point about the size of warheads

The point which I'm interested in most is more Emphasis on air2ground than air2air roles

Soviets here will be at a great disadvantage as their tactical fighters had very little load carrying capability
 
Would there still be tactical bombers? I would think so, so dedicated interceptors would still be useful.
 
Good point about the size of warheads

The point which I'm interested in most is more Emphasis on air2ground than air2air roles

Soviets here will be at a great disadvantage as their tactical fighters had very little load carrying capability
The issue is that your POD is earlier enough all of this can and probably should change. You are introducing nukes before WWII, the butterflies are Mothra sized. The Soviets even being around after this is by no means certain, let alone their aircraft being the same sorts as OTL. Until we know just what sort of geopolitical situation emerged out of this mess, it's hard to guess
 
Consisting the fact that strategic bombers are far more versatile than nuclear missiles, I wouldn't be surprised if the US and USSR have bombers for area bombing and anti-ship work. The fact that both countries maintained bomber fleets long after the point at which ICBMs and SLBMs could provide and adequate deterrent is indicative of usability beyond the specific nuclear war.
 
The Hawker Hunter and English Electric Canberra will be the main combat aircraft in the Royal Air Force for decades.
 
No Mig-25 or F-101 Voodoo seeing as that primary mission of strategic bomber interception would not be required.
Anti-missile defense systems would be more advanced though.
 
The Hawker Hunter and English Electric Canberra will be the main combat aircraft in the Royal Air Force for decades.

Even OTL, the Cranberry was in service for nigh on fifty years - the last PR9s were only retired a few years back and I think there may still be the odd Hunter still in service somewhere as a few were brought back into a training role a few years back.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Consisting the fact that strategic bombers are far more versatile than nuclear missiles, I wouldn't be surprised if the US and USSR have bombers for area bombing and anti-ship work. The fact that both countries maintained bomber fleets long after the point at which ICBMs and SLBMs could provide and adequate deterrent is indicative of usability beyond the specific nuclear war.
WELL THEY can definately use strategic bombers for tactical use
this has been done extensively in the OTL as well
but the smaller tactical planes would be a lot more accurate and survivable
 
WELL THEY can definately use strategic bombers for tactical use
this has been done extensively in the OTL as well
but the smaller tactical planes would be a lot more accurate and survivable
You can't get the same payload on target in as short a time and as few sorties and tactical aircraft certainly don't have the range or loiter capability.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
You can't get the same payload on target in as short a time and as few sorties and tactical aircraft certainly don't have the range or loiter capability.
BOTH Have advantages, but for most countries the smaller tactical aircraft are a better use of resources
 
Last edited:
BOTH Have advantages, but for most countries the smaller tactical aircraft are a better use of resources
Sure, but some countries have the ability to pay for the specialized capabilities that heavy bombers bring to the table. There's no tactical aircraft on Earth that can drop a ten ton bomb or search for and destroy an enemy warship a thousand miles from the nearest airbase.
 
Top