Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Cold War Exercise: Penetrating CONUS
Topic Started: Dec 31 2010, 05:13 AM (353 Views)
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
A while back, Simon and I discussed the proper way for the USSR to get at CONUS using long-range aviation. It is a difficult task given the deficiencies of Soviet aircraft throughout the Cold War, as well as American defenses.

Summary from before:

Quote:
 
Essentially, the shortest way is one of the great circle routes over the Pole or North Atlantic, which coincides both with much of Soviet long range aviation planning and consequent US air defence. That way, you aren't flying against the prevailing winds, nor having to cross the largest ocean in the world over bases and territories that give clear warning.

The southern approach is fairly much out, as it flies over populated countries, bases and naval operating areas, not to mention certain radar areas.

It does depend on what generation of aircraft are being employed. The Tu-4 series and all variants thereof were not true nuclear strike aircraft, just as the B-29 Silverplate wasn't, and the B-50 wasn't. The Tu-16 didn't really have the range to go any long distance, being a theatre bomber and certainly not designed for ultra long range missions with several refuelings; more comparable to the B-45 than the B-47. The Tu-95 had the range and carrying capacity, but not the performance envelope to effectively penetrate several lines of defence.

We only really see that with the Backfire and Blackjack, and even they were not fielded in sufficient numbers and armament fits to do the job as best as possible.

However, to truly get through a multi-layer defence system featuring long range radars, a couple of thousand fighters, SAGE, BOMARC and lots of Nike series missiles, you need a large flexible strategic bomber force coming on a number of different vectors. The strike package would need to include strategic fighters (F-108s and the earlier and later like) to blast a way in with nuclear AAMs and ARMs; strategic reconnaissance bombers (RB-58s with around Mach 3 top speed) to take out radar stations and SAM sites; stand off bombers equipped with a mix of supersonic ALCMs, SRAMs and ALBMs for the most complicated target mix; high altitude very high speed penetrators (B-70s) with SRAMs and gravity bombs; a lot of decoy missiles and jamming; and some low range penetrators to slip in on different vectors. Essentially, a multi spectrum assault.
High altitude is something of a greater threat as far fewer aircraft can viably get up there, and most missiles are on the edge of their envelope.
Coordinate it with SLBMs from close in (quite difficult given SOSUS and the inherent disadvantages and vulnerability of ballistic missiles) and there is trouble. Basically, a complex defence needs to be peeled back a bit, then hit with brute force in multiple locations.

The other alternative is to follow the path taken by RAF Vulcans when they successfully penetrated US airspace on exercises, and come in on an airliner flight path, flying an airliner profile with cover information. That only gets in a couple of dozen aircraft at maximum, though.

The non strategic penetration capacity was demonstrated once by HMS Ark Royal during the 1970s, when they took down almost every airbase and naval base on the East Coast on an exercise; that involves flitting in and out and hiding in plain sight.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBK
Member Avatar

I think this is exactly the reason why they went for balistic missle subs and intercontinetal missiles. It is way too hard to get at CONUS with planes.
Edited by JBK, Dec 31 2010, 01:40 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon Darkshade
Member Avatar
Nefarious Swashbuckler
Hard, but not impossible, and the strategic bomber provides a unique suite of capabilities.

The reason why the ICBM and SLBM were developed was to complement, not to replace.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
True, but there was not a lot there to complement in the early Cold War period. :P Even then I think the US had as much as an eight-to-one advantage in missiles around the time of the Cuban crisis.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon Darkshade
Member Avatar
Nefarious Swashbuckler
That was not that difficult considering the small number of Soviet bombers. The vast majority of US megatonnage was carried by bombers until the 70s.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
Slightly different take on the question. How does the balance change if we switch the means of delivery from strategic bombers to boomer subs?

Clearly, they are harder to defend against, but means of tracking departures and movements still existed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon Darkshade
Member Avatar
Nefarious Swashbuckler
Well, we make it impossible to hit hardened or precise targets until the mid 1980s.

It would lead to a historical type effort to track and hunt down strategic missile submarines, as well as employment of SOSUS and long range warning radars pointed in a variety of directions.

Even so, an SLBM is still interceptable with a good enough advanced ABM system, although sub orbital trajectory shots would require a rather strong Sprint type screen as well as longer range missiles. Some could get through, but not enough to do fatal damage.

Relying on any one means of delivery puts all eggs into a single basket and therefore simplifies the defensive equation needed.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Alternate History · Next Topic »
Add Reply