USA's "Project Cancelled"

[AJE]

Attacks on AWACS, Tankers and other force multipliers can be done over and under conventional fighting. Salvos of ballistic missiles against AWACS/Tanker bases should get a couple of hits through the TABM screen and destroy these valuable and limited aircraft and push them further away from the action which makes them less effective. Sabotage and terror attacks on these rear bases can also have a significant impact on the operation of these aircraft and the array of support they offer, making cozy assumptions about radar cover and tanker orbits obsolete. Indeed China militarising these tiny islands is specifically to deny the airspace to AWACS and tanker aircraft.

Then there's the unconventional conventional stuff like fast high altitude attacks specifically against AWACS, S400 SAM, Special Forces raids and even attacks by a battalion of Paas who then fight a gun battle on the hardstand.

It doesn't take much to reduce or render significantly less effective the force multipliers used with such stunning success since Vietnam. Then the opportunity arises for an enemy to get his attack planes and helicopters in amongst your forward troops.

Well

To do anything more than a pinprick, you would need literal tons of weaponry. Have you ever seen an airbase? I mean a modern air base? The things are massive with everything well spread out to avoid one lucky shot killing all the important bits.

Yes, the RAF regiment had light armour and during wartime would be patrolling extensively around RAFG bases with help from the Germans looking for SPETZNAZ or other Soviet forces. They knew where the bad guys would likely set up observation posts, HMG's, mortars or rockets and had ambush plans for them. Don't forget they had been working in the areas around the bases for some 40 years and so it was pretty much their back yard.

Perfectly explained. This is the point I was trying to make. Given the sheer size of the bases, there were only a few areas that you could set up an attack and hope to hit something important. And all those areas were in very carefully set up kill zones. As was stated earlier, this kind of attack only works in video games or Tom Clancy novels.

We and the Host Nations were well aware of this fact and had extensive and complete plans to deal with such situations. The most likely 'positions' were well monitored and surveyed constantly during peace time and more so during heightened tension. Specifically because most European airbases were paranoid about special forces attacks.


Not so easy to do and I'd point out that internal organization and mobilization changes from time to time so you pre-surveyed points are time-limited. I'll also point out that such pre-surveying in and of itself is a key indicator and something that is watched for.


Uh, what 'disruption' might you think would happen? We specifically trained for this kind of stuff so that down-time after an attack was reduced to mere minutes at worst. We EXPECTED to get slimed on a daily basis and work through it. Oh and by the way, once this happens you no longer have a civilian or public populace for the special forces to 'hide' among anywhere in the area so they will be spotted and wiped out as soon as they try and move into position.

As has been noted Northern Ireland and the IRA are very different from central Europe and WP forces available. Several attacks on NATO airbases and posts DID in fact take place during the 80s of which none had any notable effect on airbase/post operations so there's pretty clear proof that such attacks in the run up to a major conflict would have little effect.

Randy

So no, ground attacks on support aircraft won't do much and air superiority does indeed make air defenses irrelevant and unnecessary.

 

[Riain]

Well




So no, ground attacks on support aircraft won't do much and air superiority does indeed make air defenses irrelevant and unnecessary.

The US Army would disagree with that conclusion, the whole point of this thread is how they kept trying and failing to get mobile air defence between the HAWK/Patriot and the Redeye/Stinger.

 

[groundhogday666]

On another forum somebody suggested to re-engine a B-70 prototype with the SST GE4.
-the J93 and GE4 were related
- it was proposed to remove two J93 and put a GE4 inside a B-70 engine bay, as a SST engine testbed
- 4*GE4 without afterburner would thrust more than 6*J93 with afterburner
(6*13 = 78 tons of thrust, 4*22 = 88 tons !)

(Of course this supposes that
a) the second B-70 isn't destroyed in 1966
b) the third one is build after 1964 )

Could such B-70 supercruise ? it would be completely awesome ! It might be feasible to put two afterburning GE4 and two without afterburner, if that helps getting through the sound barrier...

 

[Hammerbolt]

The problem with the B-70 wasn't technical, it was tactical. The day of the high altitude bomber was well and trully over.

 

[Pelranius]

B-70s would have been able to handle Soviet SAMs to at least the mid 1970s (at least with nuclear strike missions).

The problem is that the cost for the upgrades that enable the B-70s to fly faster and higher in response to the S-300 (and successor) SAMs would eat up the entire USAF budget.

 

[Driftless]

Lockheed L-133

Was there any real potential with this plane had it been pushed harder, or just too much engine development work to be done?

 

[marathag]

The problem with the B-70 wasn't technical, it was tactical. The day of the high altitude bomber was well and trully over.

Yet B-52s were expected to do that very job, with the first band aid of Hound Dogs and then later ALCMs

 

[Draconis]

Yet B-52s were expected to do that very job, with the first band aid of Hound Dogs and then later ALCMs

But if you have built stand-off weapons then what need was there for the B-70? Or to put it another way would having the B-70s in service convey so much better survivability and longer range to the Hound Dog and the ALCMs that it would be worth the B-70s' expense?

 

[marathag]

But if you have built stand-off weapons then what need was there for the B-70?

Mach 3 to get to launching point sooner than the more sedate top speed of the B-52

But honestly, putting more money on the Flying Crowbar, SLAM from Project Pluto is the more logical choice for WWIII planning

High speed, yet low level to make interception almost impossible, and no pilots at risk.

If the desire is to make the USSR a nuclear hellscape, why use half measures?

 

[Riain]

The cancellation of the mach 3 bomber and fighter projects in the 60s don't bother me because they didn't cripple the US the way the post 1991 cancellation and truncation have. The US soldiered on just fine without the B70 and F108, but the lack of a good SP artillery piece is a real detriment.

 

[groundhogday666]

It wasn't really a matter of bringing back the B-70 as a viable bomber instead of B-1 / SRAM/ Tomawhak / low level penetration.

More modestly - use the second and third prototypes as air-launch platforms and SST research vehicles. Cutting the number of engines and after burner may help driving the flying cost... a little lower.

 

[Hammerbolt]

Yet B-52s were expected to do that very job, with the first band aid of Hound Dogs and then later ALCMs

But by the time of the B-70, the B-52 was allready in service, was cheaper to adapt and maintain and could carry underwing loads.

 

[marathag]

But by the time of the B-70, the B-52 was allready in service, was cheaper to adapt and maintain and could carry underwing loads.

But slow and vulnerable, as was recognized when the high speed bomber was greenlit. That didn't change in 1964 when McNamara threw on the brakes .
Honestly, it you don't want to go for a diabolically Evil thing like SLAM, the next steps should have been an improved Snarks and Mace cruise missiles, not ALCMs on aging B-52s

 

[Hammerbolt]

But slow and vulnerable, as was recognized when the high speed bomber was greenlit. That didn't change in 1964 when McNamara threw on the brakes .
Honestly, it you don't want to go for a diabolically Evil thing like SLAM, the next steps should have been an improved Snarks and Mace cruise missiles, not ALCMs on aging B-52s

Yes but the point is: when the B-70 got canned, the USAF was stuck with the B-52. It was that or nothing, until some replacement came up. Meanwhile, the BUFF kept on working, it's basic design being adapted to do every mission short of going supersonic... and then the B-1 debacle came up... and the BUFF just kept going and going and going...

 

[Pelranius]

Another problem with the B-70 is that the vanilla version would have horrendously expensive operational and maintenance costs for conventional missions (especially since it'd be stuck with carpet bombing before the widespread introduction of PGMs)

One can only imagine how much it would cost to operate a B-70 follow on with a Mach 4+ new propulsion for conventional strikes, even carrying just PGMs.

 

[Vanguard45]

The B-70 was a bomber the US could live without.

 

[marathag]

carpet bombing before the widespread introduction of PGMs)

B-70 was going to be a SAC only asset, like the newest B-52 were held back from Vietnam, that the Ds used didn't have the latest ECM that could have helped against the SA-2s.
So the B-70 wouldn't have been over North Vietnam before guided weapons are widely introduced in 1972

That, and US buys B-70s, Soviets need to spend more on Missiles and something better han the MiG-25. Its another Card for the US to play in the game of 'Deep Pockets' that the USSR would lose in the end.

B-52s make sense for Brushfire Wars, not toe to toe against the Russians

 

[NOLAWildcat]

B-70 was going to be a SAC only asset, like the newest B-52 were held back from Vietnam, that the Ds used didn't have the latest ECM that could have helped against the SA-2s.
So the B-70 wouldn't have been over North Vietnam before guided weapons are widely introduced in 1972

That, and US buys B-70s, Soviets need to spend more on Missiles and something better han the MiG-25. Its another Card for the US to play in the game of 'Deep Pockets' that the USSR would lose in the end.

B-52s make sense for Brushfire Wars, not toe to toe against the Russians

But what can the B-70 realistically do that an upgraded B-52 with ALCMs or better yet a B-1A can’t do as well in an all-up war with the Soviets? Sure the B-70 can go Mach 3+ at 75k ft, but it’s still subsonic at the deck and isn’t as versatile at those other airframes for later upgrades. It says something that the Air Force never flew the SR-71 into Soviet airspace. The B-70 would have been a great bomber for 1965, but not so much by 1975 once more capable Soviet SAMs forced it down low. Like you said, you could deploy the B-70 solely to outspend the Soviets , but if the funds are earmarked for SAC, I’d rather spend that money on Bones hauling better ALCMs, or heck, Skybolt 2.0

 

[Draconis]

Mach 3 to get to launching point sooner than the more sedate top speed of the B-52

But honestly, putting more money on the Flying Crowbar, SLAM from Project Pluto is the more logical choice for WWIII planning
View attachment 605501
High speed, yet low level to make interception almost impossible, and no pilots at risk.

If the desire is to make the USSR a nuclear hellscape, why use half measures?

No wonder they named it after the god of death.

 

[marathag]

But what can the B-70 realistically do that an upgraded B-52 with ALCMs or better yet a B-1A can’t do as well in an all-up war with the Soviets

It still gets to the Soviet Border 3x faster from Guam than a B-52, 2x as fast as a B-1, though with a funded B-70, there won't be a B-1
Speed matters for WWIII.

No reason the Skybolt sized Bomb Bay(57) could be fitted with ALCMs, either