WI no US B-52 deterrent in the Cold War?

What if for whatever reason the US lacked loitering B-52s to provide nuclear retalition to the USSR during the Cold War--an inferior SAC, basically? Would there be any interesting consequences? If you prefer, what would drive this state to be?
 

MacCaulay

Banned
If you prefer, what would drive this state to be?

I think you'd have to have a different Bomber Command come out of WWII. What they did to Germany and Japan, and how they did it, was something that to their eyes cemented a belief in strategic bombing as smoething that could win wars.
 
I think you'd have to have a different Bomber Command come out of WWII. What they did to Germany and Japan, and how they did it, was something that to their eyes cemented a belief in strategic bombing as smoething that could win wars.


Although borderline ASB, could German success during the Ardennes offensive accomplish this? If the USAAF was undertaking a large scale strategic bombing campaign with the express purpose of crippling Germany's ability to wage modern warfare, if the Germans had managed to successfully mount an offensive using mechanized means, would this cause the planners in the War Dept. to rething the use of strategic bombing?

Or perhaps have the V-2 be more effective? Thus demonstrating the importance of ballistic missiles ahead of schedule.
 
If there wasn't a B-52, there would have been a B-60. If there were neither, it was because the US was broke and not worth defending cause the commies were right.
 
Yeah. Keep in mind that the B-29 was on the books prior to US entry into WW2, and for that matter, the B-36 was in the beginning planning stages by 1941/1942 as well, IIRC. And regardless of what happened in Europe, the US still would have utilized strategic heavy bombers against Japan, so I'm not sure a "successful" (and good luck creating THAT TL) Ardennes offensive would derail US strategic bombing doctrine.
 
Or perhaps have the V-2 be more effective? Thus demonstrating the importance of ballistic missiles ahead of schedule.

Ironically (in the sense of your proposed POD) ballistic missiles DID eventually derail US bomber development, when Robert McNamara (Satan Incarnate) took over the DoD and essentially axed strategic bomber development in favor of missiles. The reason we DON'T have a more modern heavy bomber is directly attributable to a SecDef who didn't know shit about Defense, nor was he willing to learn.
 
First, you have to identify why there are no Boeing B-52s.

Is it because the United States develops an alternative in the form of another aircraft? Perhaps, the Northrop YB-49 has a better development history. Maybe the United State chooses to follow a path similar to the Martin P-6M Seamaster.

Is it because the United States chooses another technology, such as the cruise missile. Perhaps cruise missiles such as the Snark and Regulus are seen better deterrents than strategic bombers such as the B-52s.

Did Navy win, and the United States decides to base its deterrent forces on supercarriers. (Point of departure--Truman realizes LeMay is totally whacko. :D)

Or did the United States decide that more butter was more important than more guns?

A reason for the departure is needed before the ramifications of the departure can be explored intelligently.
 
Did Navy win, and the United States decides to base its deterrent forces on supercarriers. (Point of departure--Truman realizes LeMay is totally whacko. :D)

Yes, as opposed to James Forrestal, who killed himself? Right. :rolleyes:
 
What if for whatever reason the US lacked loitering B-52s to provide nuclear retalition to the USSR during the Cold War--an inferior SAC, basically? Would there be any interesting consequences? If you prefer, what would drive this state to be?

There would be no practical consequences. The USAF could have well managed with B-47's until ICBM's took the primary role in nuclear strike role.

Preferred timeline, of course, would be one where the Seaborne Striking Force would take over the B-52 mission...
 
Ironically (in the sense of your proposed POD) ballistic missiles DID eventually derail US bomber development, when Robert McNamara (Satan Incarnate) took over the DoD and essentially axed strategic bomber development in favor of missiles. The reason we DON'T have a more modern heavy bomber is directly attributable to a SecDef who didn't know shit about Defense, nor was he willing to learn.


So ICBM's which are cheaper to produce and require no crew to fly and are also still damn near impossible to shoot down are a bad idea compared to nuclear bombers?
 
So ICBM's which are cheaper to produce and require no crew to fly and are also still damn near impossible to shoot down are a bad idea compared to nuclear bombers?

Add the fact that compared to ICBM a heavy bomber is slightly more difficult to put into a silo which can withstand all but almost direct hits...
 
Try putting heavy bombers in a submarine--that, too, is difficult.

Yes, but this does not change the fact that the duty of various military forces is not trying to equip and train themselves for the role given to them by their respective political commanders but to field cool military equipment. A plastic 1:72 model of B-52 is much more impressive than a model of Minuteman or Polaris. :D
 
Well actually a ballistic missile is usually quite a bit easier if you actually invest in ABM weaponry then a bomber.

Penetration capability of an ICBM can be improved in many ways, such as introduction of MIRV's, manouverable warheads etc. Penetration capability of a bomber is much more harder to improve. Cruise missile offered a cheap and quick fix but then in that case one might question the need for a bomber altogether as submarines or surface ships offer more cost-effective and flexible (staying capability) firing platform. Naturally one should add the fact that a bomber firing cruise missiles does not have to have good penetration abilities anyway.
 
What if for whatever reason the US lacked loitering B-52s to provide nuclear retalition to the USSR during the Cold War--an inferior SAC, basically? Would there be any interesting consequences? If you prefer, what would drive this state to be?

Well, if the B52 fails to be adopted for some reason (Boeing submits an inferior design to that offered in OTL, or some other reason), then the Convair B-60 will be adopted. This plane was capable of performing the role performed by the B52, albeit not as well. This will be supplemented by a longer service life for B47s operating from European bases.

Strategically, after the development of ICBMs and especially SLBMs, the bomber leg of the Strategic Triad was not really necessary. If a design as good as the B52 doesn't appear by the early 1960s, then the Air Force may well decide to scrap it's long-range bomber program and concentrate on ICBMs. If that happens, the biggest impact the lack of a B52 would be, ironically, the impact it would have on American capability to deliver large quantities of CONVENTIONAL ordnance on a target. This would affect the conduct of the Vietnam War as well as both Gulf Wars. Of course, its possible other aircraft could be found to fill the conventional delivery role. But it's hard to imagine any of the OTL contenders for said role doing as well as the "BUFF" as a conventional bomber.
 
You know the thing about missiles? They can't be recalled. Any mistake made with an ICBM can't be rectified. Furthermore, I'm afraid that an ICBM can't perform a multi-role mission, while a heavy bomber can - and has, consistently.

More importantly, I'm not saying that we should NOT have developed ICBMs and especially SLBMs, just that we should not have capped bomber development at the B-52. Yes, I know that we have the B-1/B-2 program today, but the fact of the matter is that instead of a rapidly declining B-52 fleet, we could currently be deploying hundreds of B-70s and (more importantly) their derivatives, in addition to missiles and stealth bombers.
 
Top