Post-War Air Power Without the V2

What would the effects be on post-war air power if the Germans hadn't built the V2 rocket? Let's say, just to keep things simple, that they spent the freed-up money on a mix of more V1s and something completely useless, like sonic weapons, so that the effects on WW2 itself are negligible.

Presumably this delays ICBMs. In a previous thread, there was considerable disagreement on how long a delay there would be, with opinion split roughly evenly between 25 years, 5 years, or none at all. I'm thinking 5-10 years, based on averaging views expressed in that thread. Presumably the US would keep pushing intercontinental ramjet missiles like the Navaho; could they eventually be made to work reliably?

How much effect would this have on SAMs? I know the German effort was an outgrowth of Peenmunde, but the US already had its own nascent projects using ramjets or solid rockets. Would the B-70 still be cancelled, or would it be fielded as the last high-altitude bomber?

Would the Soviets try to bluff with cruise missiles in the late 50s the way Krushchev did with ballistic missiles? Or would they pursue more conventional long-range aviation?

Thoughts?
 
Did the V2 have much influence on SAM theory? I dont mean technically but on the idea of using a missile to stop a plane at all. Soviet SAMs were apparently created due to the idea of needing some kind of weapon to take down high altitude US bombers. I dont know if the V2 gave anyone the idea of a missile based system or if Soviet researchers reached the conclusion themselves that a missile would be most effective.
 
The V-2 had absolutely no influence on the desire to destroy aircraft using missiles. Several countries had programs, experts, and proponents. Duncan Sandys comes to mind. The V-2 did have a significant impact on the technology of liquid-fueled rockets, some of which had influence on SAM's. Largely, it gave a great boost to ballistic missiles and space programs.
 
Did the V2 have much influence on SAM theory? I dont mean technically but on the idea of using a missile to stop a plane at all. Soviet SAMs were apparently created due to the idea of needing some kind of weapon to take down high altitude US bombers. I dont know if the V2 gave anyone the idea of a missile based system or if Soviet researchers reached the conclusion themselves that a missile would be most effective.

read about the German "Wasserfall" program

The US was also using television and radio guided bombs in World War II, with the Azon system being pretty successful. Guided bombs and missiles have a pretty good basis even without German research. Rockets were in wide use during the war by both the Germans and Allies, so a guided rocket is an idea whose time would have come pretty inevitably. Without the German research in ground to ground ballistic missiles, we might have seen a longer lead time on ICBMs though and more thought in rocket planes and eventually orbital bombers similar to what Sanger proposed and variants of Dynasoar and the X15 instead of the Atlas.
 
Did the V2 have much influence on SAM theory? I dont mean technically but on the idea of using a missile to stop a plane at all. Soviet SAMs were apparently created due to the idea of needing some kind of weapon to take down high altitude US bombers. I dont know if the V2 gave anyone the idea of a missile based system or if Soviet researchers reached the conclusion themselves that a missile would be most effective.

The US had indigenous SAM projects running during the war: the Navy's Operation Bumblebee using ramjets and the Army's Project Nike using solid rockets. So the idea was definitely out there.

The US was also using television and radio guided bombs in World War II, with the Azon system being pretty successful. Guided bombs and missiles have a pretty good basis even without German research. Rockets were in wide use during the war by both the Germans and Allies, so a guided rocket is an idea whose time would have come pretty inevitably. Without the German research in ground to ground ballistic missiles, we might have seen a longer lead time on ICBMs though and more thought in rocket planes and eventually orbital bombers similar to what Sanger proposed and variants of Dynasoar and the X15 instead of the Atlas.

Once you have the technology to fly an X-15, isn't a ballistic missile kind of inevitable? I'm sure the ICBM would be delayed. But once you have the technology to fly one, the advantages of a missile over a space bomber seem overwhelming: cheaper, more resilient, more reliable, less technically challenging.

What about intercontinental ramjet missiles? I'm really curious if the Navaho or a successor could be debugged, or if the technology just wasn't going to work.
 
What about intercontinental ramjet missiles? I'm really curious if the Navaho or a successor could be debugged, or if the technology just wasn't going to work.
I don't see why not. If you want simple & reliable, a ramjet is even better than a liquid rocket. (Less so, maybe, than a solid...)
 
Without the German research in ground to ground ballistic missiles, we might have seen a longer lead time on ICBMs though and more thought in rocket planes and eventually orbital bombers similar to what Sanger proposed and variants of Dynasoar and the X15 instead of the Atlas.

The difficulty is that the Sanger idea is impractical. Skip-gliding leads to unacceptable heating rates and accelerations, while boost-gliding also requires more attention to cooling than a ballistic profile does. Additionally, the best shape (from the point of view of not burning up) for a high-hypersonic environment is the blunt-body, which is really bad at maneuvering (of course, that hasn't prevented people from developing MARVs).
 
Top