F-16 intercepts ballistic missile in test..

[Ritterin Sophia]

Not that I disagree with you Stuart, in fact I would like to see the US move over to Mach 3+ high-flying bombers. But shouldn't we factor in each system's development cost? I remember you saying the technology for B-70 and SR-71 type planes was gone, like the technology for the B-52's wing structure, and we'd have to start completely over from scratch. How much would that cost us?

They lost the tech for the B-52's wings?

Is this a case of losing the plans to the Saturn Vs?

To quote Stuart:

The B-52 main wing structure requires milling and forging equipment that no longer exists. If we wanted to build the B-52s wings, we'd have to rebuild all that equipment infrastructure. Likewise, if the B-52 fleet suddenly develops wing cracks, we've got very real problems.

From the 'No Rest For The U-2' Thread.

[The Dark]

with cruise missiles there is speed, there is altitude and there is stealth, pick two

I've heard that US will retire it's AGM-129 stealth cruise missile. Does that mean they are picking speed and altitude? Is there a replacement?

There were only around 500-600 AGM-129s ever produced, so they were never a common piece of hardware. They've been replaced (to the best of my knowledge) by AGM-158A JASSM missiles.

We need SLAM back. Come on, everyone loves it and I've been itching to have an excuse to bring it back, improved for better commie wasting abilities!

The Navy uses AGM-84H and AGM-84K SLAM-ER missiles. The problem with the original SLAM was it required two aircraft to fire - one to launch the missile, and the other to provide the data link for targeting.

[Sea Skimmer]

There were only around 500-600 AGM-129s ever produced, so they were never a common piece of hardware. They've been replaced (to the best of my knowledge) by AGM-158A JASSM missiles.

The Advanced Cruise Missile was a purely nuclear weapon, JASSM is purely conventional. JASSM is in fact a replacement for the AGM-137 TSSAM which was a stealthy conventional cruise missile of the same vintage as AGM-129. It was canceled at the end of the cold war because the cost per missile was estimated at more then 2 million.

The Navy uses AGM-84H and AGM-84K SLAM-ER missiles. The problem with the original SLAM was it required two aircraft to fire - one to launch the missile, and the other to provide the data link for targeting.

That’s not the SLAM he meant,this is. It is perhaps the most insane weapon ever; but they actually ran the atomic reactor ramjet engine on ground tests before realizing that.

[Uraniun235]

Is this a case of losing the plans to the Saturn Vs?

This is a myth. The plans are still in storage.

[Stuart]

Not that I disagree with you Stuart, in fact I would like to see the US move over to Mach 3+ high-flying bombers. But shouldn't we factor in each system's development cost? I remember you saying the technology for B-70 and SR-71 type planes was gone, like the technology for the B-52's wing structure, and we'd have to start completely over from scratch. How much would that cost us?

I agree; but we're talking a purely hypothetical situation here, comparing the cost of running a strategic fleet based on missiles vs a strategic fleet based on bombers. Development costs were excluded from that but I'd hazard a guess that the development cost of a bomber and a strategic missile are probably pretty similar. Each has a whole load of design criteria that the other doesn't have so if one had to design each from scratch, *****my guess***** would be that they end up costing around the same.

However, the cost of converting TODAY from missiles to Mach 3 high-altitude bombers would be hideously prohibitive, it would bankrupt the country. The technology is long gone, we just don't have the facilities to build them (all the jigging and tooling needed to build the SR-71 and B-70 was destroyed specifically so that the aircraft could not be returned to production).

The B-52 example is the wing spar. This is a massive forging that required specific tooling which has long been scrapped. So, no matter how much we may want to, we can't build a B-52 main spar and if the ones that exist become useless (for example by fatigue cracking) the B-52 is history. Now, we can build equivalent wing spars by other means but we can't put the spars we build that way into a B-52 without redesigning the whole aircraft. So its a good example of options that are closed because a 1950s technology is no longer available.

Of course, we could build a new forge for wing spar production and solve the problem that way, but for less than a hundred aircraft? And what do we do with it afterwards?

[Stuart]

The newer SAM complexes could possibly deal with such a craft, if it actually penetrates a densely filled region, instead of just skimming it, but that's just my suggestion. There's no way a B-70 could have been vulnerable to 1960s technology.

A MiG-31 force with good ground controllers would probably also stand a chance but the B-70s first job would be to break up the ground control network by using nuclear-tipped ARMs to take out the surveillance and radars and local air defense centers. Even The Gray Lady can shoot back if needed (standard advice from Nevada - never take The Gray Lady for granted) and the B-70 would have had a whole clutch of defensive systems to use against threats to its existance.

If Russia can get the S-400 working (at the moment the "S-400 batteries" actually use upgraded S-300PMU missiles) then the system would be a threat. But, remember, the B-70 is technology that's almost half a century old. We could do a lot better if we were designing a hypersonic bomber for today's environment - Mach 7 and 200,000 feet would probably be a reasonable performance target

[The Dark]

There were only around 500-600 AGM-129s ever produced, so they were never a common piece of hardware. They've been replaced (to the best of my knowledge) by AGM-158A JASSM missiles.

The Advanced Cruise Missile was a purely nuclear weapon, JASSM is purely conventional. JASSM is in fact a replacement for the AGM-137 TSSAM which was a stealthy conventional cruise missile of the same vintage as AGM-129. It was canceled at the end of the cold war because the cost per missile was estimated at more then 2 million.

Ah. I was looking at what actually replaced the AGM-129 in use (i.e. as the B-52's cruise missile), rather than focusing on the warhead. Actually, from the dimensions of the W80-3 bomb, it looks like JASSM should physically be capable of carrying the same warhead. Given that TSSAM never entered service (as far as I'm aware), I didn't consider JASSM a "replacement" for it - after all, we usually don't say that the P-80 replaced the P-59 as a jet fighter.

The Navy uses AGM-84H and AGM-84K SLAM-ER missiles. The problem with the original SLAM was it required two aircraft to fire - one to launch the missile, and the other to provide the data link for targeting.

That’s not the SLAM he meant,this is. It is perhaps the most insane weapon ever; but they actually ran the atomic reactor ramjet engine on ground tests before realizing that.

Oh, the flying crowbar. Of course, the problem was that the unshielded reactor shat radiation as it flew (necessitating a strap-on rocket booster to avoid contaminating its airfield, and making it a fire-and-abandon weapon), the aerodynamic pressures were nucking futs (~5 times the pressure an X-15 faced), the Tory-IIc barely produced more power than one of the SR-71's engines (an extra 2500 pounds of thrust), and it had no margin of error (the melting point of the engine was about 100 degrees F above its operating temperature - a FOD hit could create a dent that would form a hotspot and melt the engine). Other than that, it was brilliant

[K. A. Pital]

Stuart
Now, let's be fair... The B-70 was garotted 40+ years ago. The SAMs developed as they did without it's imminent threat. In fact, the problem of said craft not existing and the technology for it's construction not being actively used by the US anymore raises the question if it will really be created at all.

...but the B-70s first job would be to break up the ground control network by using nuclear-tipped ARMs to take out the surveillance and radars and local air defense centers

At what range, however? Below 400 kms? You're probably aware that an S-400 is capable of striking cruise missiles down and even ICBM warheads until their descent speed doesn't exceed 5 km/s? And that it can kill suborbital skimming targets at heights up to 185 kms?

If Russia can get the S-400 working (at the moment the "S-400 batteries" actually use upgraded S-300PMU missiles)

The Fakel special missiles have been tested IIRC, so I don't think the replacement of 48H6E and 48H6E2 is far down the road. Besides, as you know, the S-400 targeting center can discern target priorities, so you don't need to replace all missiles with "Fakel" ones, merely some. AEW planes, supersonic bombers get the highest priority since they are crucial to an aerial assistance. For other targets the system will direct 48H6Es and that would be sufficient IMHO.

We could do a lot better if we were designing a hypersonic bomber for today's environment - Mach 7 and 200,000 feet would probably be a reasonable performance target

The speed is impressive. The altitude is not. And so far I don't see much action down that line. Maybe it's because it's classified (after all, you need to spend those 500 billion every year on something).

[Stuart]

Now, let's be fair... The B-70 was garotted 40+ years ago. The SAMs developed as they did without it's imminent threat. In fact, the problem of said craft not existing and the technology for it's construction not being actively used by the US anymore raises the question if it will really be created at all.

This is a very good point; if we had continued to push for the hypersonic, ultra-high altitude bombers, SAM technology would have followed a rather different path. We'd be looking at longer-ranged, higher speed SAMs with the radars to match. In fact, we'd be looking at something rather like a blend of the anti-missile and anti-aircraft missiles with the speed and range of the former and the ability to handle manoeuvering targets of the latter. What that implies is that they would be even more effective as missile-interceptors. So, we'd be seeing a dual-purpose defense system that would be even more effective against missiles than the one's were contemplating here. So, ironically, one of the effects of developing high Mach, high altitude bombers is to make ballistic missiles even more obsolete.

At what range, however? Below 400 kms? You're probably aware that an S-400 is capable of striking cruise missiles down and even ICBM warheads until their descent speed doesn't exceed 5 km/s? And that it can kill suborbital skimming targets at heights up to 185 kms?

I know the figures but they are veryu much best case hypotheses, they're assuming a cooperative target. Our hypothetical in-service B-70 shoots back - for example it has DAMS that can shoot down inbound threat SAMs. It also has elaborate EW equipment used to decoy threats and blind radars. It's defense penetration missiles (assuming something very similar to AGM-131) would have a range of around 500 - 600 km, a speed of around Mach five and, of course, have a nuclear warhead

The Fakel special missiles have been tested IIRC, so I don't think the replacement of 48H6E and 48H6E2 is far down the road. Besides, as you know, the S-400 targeting center can discern target priorities, so you don't need to replace all missiles with "Fakel" ones, merely some. AEW planes, supersonic bombers get the highest priority since they are crucial to an aerial assistance. For other targets the system will direct 48H6Es and that would be sufficient IMHO.

2012 is the date I have. Target prioritization is a pretty standard feature of any combat management system so its pretty much an accessible state of the art. The problem is that after the first wave of hypersonic bombers have done their thing, there won't be a defensive system left.

The speed is impressive. The altitude is not. And so far I don't see much action down that line. Maybe it's because it's classified (after all, you need to spend those 500 billion every year on something).

Precisely . I don't know what is actually in the black world these days but enough hints seep out that there are some particularly fun developments in there. The altitude figure is a bit of a cheat, over 200,000 feet we're into suborbital territory and that's a different ball-game.

[K. A. Pital]

The altitude figure is a bit of a cheat, over 200,000 feet we're into suborbital territory and that's a different ball-game.

Sure, but missiles nowadays can hit suborbitals. Hell, there were projects to use the S-400 to kill missiles in suborbital space.

I know the figures but they are veryu much best case hypotheses, they're assuming a cooperative target. Our hypothetical in-service B-70 shoots back - for example it has DAMS that can shoot down inbound threat SAMs. It also has elaborate EW equipment used to decoy threats and blind radars. It's defense penetration missiles (assuming something very similar to AGM-131) would have a range of around 500 - 600 km, a speed of around Mach five and, of course, have a nuclear warhead

500-600? That's the same as the S-400 with a "Fakel" missile (admittedly the figures given by the airforce are subject to doubt). And I doubt it's with 1960s missiles, right? So it's a case of current SAM missiles versus current penetration missiles. I can't really say which has the edge, but SAMs have been effective at hitting cruise missiles. In what way a bomber penetration missile is any different from a typical cruise missile?

This is a very good point; if we had continued to push for the hypersonic, ultra-high altitude bombers, SAM technology would have followed a rather different path.

SAM technology can still follow that path if a threat of supersonic high-altitude bombers becomes imminent.

[MKSheppard]

Sure, but missiles nowadays can hit suborbitals. Hell, there were projects to use the S-400 to kill missiles in suborbital space.

But can the missile manuver evasively like a manned bomber can? The best a missile can do is a series of canned evasive manuvers.

500-600? That's the same as the S-400 with a "Fakel" missile (admittedly the figures given by the airforce are subject to doubt). And I doubt it's with 1960s missiles, right?

Remember that the missile has a hell of a "boost" launching from a platform flying at Mach 3+ and at 70,000 to 90,000 feet. It's already in the thinnest part of the atmosphere, so no need to waste energy climing up for cruise like the AIM-54 did.

[Sidewinder]

We clearly need new nuclear weapons. Let's dust off those coastal city-decimating nuclear torpedos from 1960s.

I had a friend who served on a USN sub. He stated that the USN also had nuclear-armed torpedos, and that such weapons are impractical because there's NO WAY a sub can get out of the blast radius in time, except maybe by being thrown about like a beer can, after firing one of those things. I doubt many Russian seamen are gung-ho enough to risk certain death by using a nuclear-armed torpedo, unless they're totally ignorant of the weapon's power.

[Sidewinder]

Even The Gray Lady can shoot back if needed (standard advice from Nevada - never take The Gray Lady for granted) and the B-70 would have had a whole clutch of defensive systems to use against threats to its existance.

What's the Gray Lady?

[K. A. Pital]

But can the missile manuver evasively like a manned bomber can? The best a missile can do is a series of canned evasive manuvers.

The missiles (at least the S-400 ones) are designed specifically to hit supersonic targets which engage in evasive manevers. The interceptor missile itself is also capable of evasion.

Remember that the missile has a hell of a "boost" launching from a platform flying at Mach 3+ and at 70,000 to 90,000 feet.

At launch it will have the same speed as the bomber due to inertial reasons? yes.

He stated that the USN also had nuclear-armed torpedos, and that such weapons are impractical because there's NO WAY a sub can get out of the blast radius in time, except maybe by being thrown about like a beer can, after firing one of those things.

I kind of doubt it... I mean those weapons have been tested. No freaking way they would even be built if they could not be used at all.

[Sea Skimmer]

I had a friend who served on a USN sub. He stated that the USN also had nuclear-armed torpedos, and that such weapons are impractical because there's NO WAY a sub can get out of the blast radius in time, except maybe by being thrown about like a beer can, after firing one of those things. I doubt many Russian seamen are gung-ho enough to risk certain death by using a nuclear-armed torpedo, unless they're totally ignorant of the weapon's power.

The only US nuclear torpedo was the Mark 45 ASTOR which could reach 15,000 yards with an 11kt warhead. I would very much expect that the sub would in fact survive at that range. However ASTOR was is a pretty dubious weapon for a different reason; mainly it has no homing capability and must be wired guided and command detonated. Maneuver your own sub hard after you fire and you break the wire and the torpedo is totally useless. The thing lasted until 1976 by which time the Mk48 torpedo had show its potential.

The Soviet nuclear torpedoes could have longer range and bigger warheads since they are intended for attacking fixed city targets, not moving subs. A simple timer could activate the warhead.

[K. A. Pital]

Soviet nuclear torpedoes don't have wire guidance. We can also put nuclear devices on Shkval-type weapons.

[Stuart]

What's the Gray Lady?

SAC nickname for the B-52

[Stuart]

The missiles (at least the S-400 ones) are designed specifically to hit supersonic targets which engage in evasive manevers. The interceptor missile itself is also capable of evasion.[/b]

That's pretty typical of most SAMs; the big difference between a SAM and a fully-fledged ABM is that SAMs trade range and speed for the ability to handle a manoeuvering target. The point about an aircraft beinga ble to manoeuver though isn't that it can dodge the missile, if things ever get that desperately close the situation is already far gone. What the manoeuvering aircraft does is increase the area of probability for the aircraft's position at the time the missile makes its intercept. The faster teh aircraft is and the more agile it is the bigger that area. The missile crew on the ground have to anticipate where the aircraft will be at the time the missile arrives at the right place, time and altitude so that said aircraft is within the missile's acquisition basket. If the ground crew have an uplink they can correct their aim but that uplink is very susceptible to jamming. Also, the aircraft may not be where the ground radar shows it to be; the deception jamming equipment on the SR-71 frequently deluded ground radars to the point where they were showing a "position" that was tens, even hundreds of miles from the real one. I've personally seen a track chart that shows the apparent position of an SR-71 as recorded by a ground radar, steadily diverging from the aircraft's real track as deception jamming lead the ground radar steadily astray. If that track had been used as the basis for a missile launch, the missile would have simply gone ballistic and crashed.

In contrast the area of probability for an inbound ballistic missile is a dimensionless dot. It will be at a specific place at a specific time. That's why the Indians don't need a guidance system on their exo-atmospheric interceptor. (They may chose to add one but the reasons why would be another matter); they simply calclate where the inbound will be and put a damn big rock at the right spot.

I've got no doubt that modern missile batteries would inflict some casualties on an inbound bomber force but the loss rate would be entirely acceptable - remember if the defense gets 10 or even 20 percent of the bombers, 80 - 90 percent get through and with the load-carrying capability of a bomber, that's a catastrophe - and remember, if a bomber is shot down, another can be retargeted to take on its targets. The bombers would carry extra weapons for precisely that reason, or to drop on anything that looks interesting.

The same funding invested in an anti-missile defense is likely to have kill rates in the high 80s and 90s (remember, the Indians have had two tests and both have been VERY successful). Missiles can't be retargeted so if the missile aimed at a specific target is shot down, that target survives.

At launch it will have the same speed as the bomber due to inertial reasons? yes.

Correct, but the SAM will have the same speed as its launch platform- and the speed of the ground is Mach 0.0. That's what Mark is trying to say, the missile fired from the aircraft is already travelling at Mach 3 so its acceleration is additional to that. The SAM has to accelerate from Mach 0.0 to Mach 3.0 and it has to do so where the air is thick and draggy. Give you a good example. We did some work on a surface-launched derivative of the AIM-54 Phoenix as a point defense system (Sea Phoenix). Phoenix had a range (fired from an aircraft) of over 100 miles, the surface launched version could barely manage 20.

[K. A. Pital]

There's little point in investing into something that doesn't offer protection from bombers. So I guess if ABM doesn't require that much money to set up, investing in better SAMs and MiG-31 derivative interceptors is more important.

[Chris OFarrell]

Consider. In a surprise attack / first strike scenario, a good chunk of the SSBN fleet is going to be on patrol as a matter of course, out in the ocean and all but impossible to find, though I grant that that concept may not always hold true, but it still appears to be valid today.

The launch palyforms may be relatively invulnerable but the shoreside C4 facilities are very vulnerable to a decapitating strike.

How so, at least any more then any other shoreside C4I technology? From what I recall, most communications with submarines is done via Satellites, with only the ELF quing system shore side, though I think I recall hearing that there are command and control aircraft that can take over that function.

In addition, onlya limited proportion of the subs are at sea at any one time (its about 10 percent for the Russians, about a third for ours); the rest are sitting in port, since the ports are coastal they can be taken out with only a couple of minutes notice - the Russians use a syurface-burst version of their SSN-16 rocker-delivered nuclear depth charge for that role.

The same is true of a depressed trajectoy SLBM launch off the US coast at major US airbases is it not? And before you can say that the bombers given increasing alert and tension would have been dispersed, the same holds true of the missile subs, does it not? Those in port would be sortied as the tension started to increase as a matter of course unless I'm mistaken, hence the whole reason for having two complete crews for them.

The airbases are far inland, we get 15 - 20 minutes warning of an inbound.

Yeah for a missile attack from say Russia against the US, not including a point strike through a bomber for a launch 5 miles off the US coast from that same sub that just blew up the boomer port. The US has great C4I technology, but the decision-response cycle to detect the launch, validate it and issue scramble orders then get the bombers off before the missiles start blasting into your air bases, command and control facilities, long range radars and rest is going to be a little tight isn't it?

The catch is we don't have to wait for an inbound, we can launch just because we feel unesy and always call the birds back.

Yes and the same is true to a large extent of the subs isn't it? From what I recall, most US subs come back to port for a period of generally minor stand down while the crews and switched over and routine crap is done, but they ARE maintained ready to surge out within a matter of hours, if the tension is suddenly starting to rise.

The Airbase on the other hand, even IF they are keeping their entire bomber line ready on a 5 minute scramble -what is the cost of that BTW, it must be bloody maintenance intensive, crew intensive and so on- are still in a fixed position with the bombers on the ground.

why? The bombers just sit there. It was a stated requirement taht teh B-70 could be started up and rolling within 5 minutes of an alert - and they got out of teh base at 15 second intervals per runway. No extra cost for that, its nota s if we're running the birds's engines all the time.

You also need what, 3-4 complete maintenance and 'crew' crews for each aircraft in order to maintain a viable 24/7 alert don't you? Also probably backup aircraft so you can rotate a portion of the fleet through routine maintenance, check flights and so on while keeping the rest of the fleet fully manned and operational right? Plus if you are going to disperse deploy the aircraft to alternate airfields in the event of an attack, you need to have all the equipment and personnel already forward deployed at those locations to support the aircraft. Plus all the tanker aircraft to support the aircraft which themselves will require the same level of support to be ready to support the bombers...

What I'm trying to get at here is the TOTAL costs from a systems approach to support this kind of B-70 -or any bomber fleet really to repalce the boomers-

Add to that the fact that at least a third of the boomers ARE going to be safely deployed more or less at all times and, for all intents and purposes, safe from any kind of preemptive attack that might degrade their effectivenesses, a number which can be increased, at least in the USN Boomer fleet, to almost all the boomers with only a little warning for rising tensions. I mean it must be easier to just have boomers undergoing replenishment run for the ocean and hover there for a week then keeping B-70 wings circling at the failsafe point or being scattered across half the US at alternate airfields...

And if its on the ground and known, you can hit it. Perhaps with a Stealth Bomber,

hundreds of miles inland - I don;t think so.

You seriously don't think a Stealth Bomber could penetrate current US airspace without being detected? Despite the fact that the US doesn't HAVE an IADS of any real kind at all? Seriously?

Because if you answer 'then we build one', then what does THAT cost add to the whole bomber system to reliably protect the airbases from that kind of attack? The cost of a multi layered long, medium and short ranged defensive network?

perhaps with a special forces operation sneaking a nuke onto the base or something.

Not in the real world

Please, if Mexicans can jump across the border and the US government can't do jack shit to stop them, how in the hell is the US going to stop a network of professional special forces cells being quietly established in the US months before any strike is planned, with smuggled in or covertly dropped things like smuggling in or having dropped in stuff like a W72 launcher to blast the runways at airbases into junk and trap the bombers on the ground? Hell, I don't even know if most major US airbases actually had *hardened* shelters for the bomber wings, did they?

You could get around this by, like SAC used to, having a chunk of the bomber fleet always flying at failsafe points, but that would no doubt increase the cost both in terms of maintenance, crews, airframes, tanker support and so on when you consider it in terms of a system. Not to mention if the "other guy" has his own interceptors shadowing your bombers ready to pounce and engage if things go hot.

Failsafe points were chosen to prevent that happening.,

Fair enough, but whats the cost of running the bombers at those points? If you're say going to keep a third of your fleet in the air at all times at failsafe points, what kind of cost is that going to run up in fuel, tankers, airframe damage / aircraft life and so on?

Not to mention the return to the 'bad old days' mentality.

Bad old days? Why?

Okay I'm not going to get into a debate of the virtues of the nuclear happy cold war with you Consider it withdrawn.

[Adrian Laguna]

Please, if Mexicans can jump across the border and the US government can't do jack shit to stop them, how in the hell is the US going to stop a network of professional special forces cells being quietly established in the US months before any strike is planned, with smuggled in or covertly dropped things like smuggling in or having dropped in stuff like a W72 launcher to blast the runways at airbases into junk and trap the bombers on the ground? Hell, I don't even know if most major US airbases actually had *hardened* shelters for the bomber wings, did they?

You would have to be utterly insane to try such a thing. The potential points of failure for such an operation are numerous, and any failure would be completely disastrous. You'd be extremely lucky if the US did not immediately retaliate with full force. Even if it did succeed, the US still has nuclear-armed naval assets. Any preemptive strike would be undoubtedly painful.

Firstly if a spy happens to hear of the operation, you're fucked. Even the best operational security has a risk of leakage, you better be dammed sure that the rewards are worth that risk.

Secondly you are assuming that all the teams will get through with their weapons and gear unnoticed. This is a huge gamble, even if the chances favour a successful insertion, you only need a single team to have a run of bad luck.

Thirdly, let us assume they do manage to get in. Your commandos not have an extensive support network that has insinuated itself into the very fabric of American society, as do illegal immigrants. Thus they are at a considerably greater risk of discovery.

Fourthly, they will also have to assault bases that are mostly located in the middle of nowhere and heavily guarded.

If anything, anything at all, goes wrong, the USA has ironclad casus belli and will most likely proceed to nuke your country into oblivion. Only a madman would authorize such a risky operation.

[Stuart]

How so, at least any more then any other shoreside C4I technology? From what I recall, most communications with submarines is done via Satellites, with only the ELF quing system shore side, though I think I recall hearing that there are command and control aircraft that can take over that function.

Because the bombers are gone, on their way. The submarines are still waiting for their missile launch orders. Again, one can recall bombers, one cannot recall missiles.

The same is true of a depressed trajectoy SLBM launch

No such thing.

off the US coast at major US airbases is it not? And before you can say that the bombers given increasing alert and tension would have been dispersed, the same holds true of the missile subs, does it not?

No, it does not. The B-70s could have bene off the runways in five minutes; at best it would take hours to get an alongside submarine off, if it was in maintenance it could take days or weeks.

Those in port would be sortied as the tension started to increase as a matter of course unless I'm mistaken, hence the whole reason for having two complete crews for them.

You are mistaken. The point of having two crews is to have one crew training/on leave etc while the other takes the boat out., It has nothing to do with rapid sortie

Yeah for a missile attack from say Russia against the US, not including a point strike through a bomber for a launch 5 miles off the US coast from that same sub that just blew up the boomer port.

Once again, we get the bombers off wheneverw e feel like it. We can always call them back. We still get plenty of warning of an attack even if its launched froma relatively short distance off our coast. And the boats that launch those attacks have a VERY short life expectancy.

The US has great C4I technology, but the decision-response cycle to detect the launch, validate it and issue scramble orders then get the bombers off before the missiles start blasting into your air bases, command and control facilities, long range radars and rest is going to be a little tight isn't it?

No. Once aggain, you don't understand the essential difference between a missile launch and a bomber launch. For a bom,ber launch we don;t have to validate or do anything else. We can launch on suspicion and turn teh bombers around and bring them home if it turns out to be a mistake. A missile cannot be turned around, redirected or aborted so we have to go through all the steps you suggest.

Yes and the same is true to a large extent of the subs isn't it?

No it is not. An SLBM cannot be aborted, redirected, turned around or destructed. Once its gone, its gone, it can't eb recalled.

From what I recall, most US subs come back to port for a period of generally minor stand down while the crews and switched over and routine crap is done, but they ARE maintained ready to surge out within a matter of hours, if the tension is suddenly starting to rise.

You recall mostly wrong. A few boats can be surged out in a matter of hours (as compared to the five minutes for a B-70) but the majority are in deep maintenance and are out for days, weeks or months.

You also need what, 3-4 complete maintenance and 'crew' crews for each aircraft in order to maintain a viable 24/7 alert don't you?

No, that's not the way it works. hasn't been since the middle of WW2 Saint Curtis saw to that. Operational readiness rate for a SAC group was set at 80 percent - ie that percentage of aircraft had to be ready to go within the stipulated time period - five minutes for a B-70. Operational readiness rate for ballistic missiles is classified but is popularly reported to be around 60 percent.

Plus if you are going to disperse deploy the aircraft to alternate airfields in the event of an attack, you need to have all the equipment and personnel already forward deployed at those locations to support the aircraft.

Nope. Still wrong. Turck convoys set up and ready to move. A lot of equipment can be pre-positioned though. However, the dispersal airfields are such that they have a lot of the stuff for their routine operations only

What I'm trying to get at here is the TOTAL costs from a systems approach to support this kind of B-70 -or any bomber fleet really to repalce the boomers-

You're failing rather badly. Also, there are a lot of costs in submarine operation we haven't included. For example, escorting the boats as they leave port and re-enter, mine clearance for same, all the way to disposing of the submarines at the end of their life (VERY expensive).

You seriously don't think a Stealth Bomber could penetrate current US airspace without being detected? Despite the fact that the US doesn't HAVE an IADS of any real kind at all? Seriously?

No comment.

Please, if Mexicans can jump across the border and the US government can't do jack shit to stop them, how in the hell is the US going to stop a network of professional special forces cells being quietly established in the US months before any strike is planned, with smuggled in or covertly dropped things like smuggling in or having dropped in stuff like a W72 launcher to blast the runways at airbases into junk and trap the bombers on the ground? Hell, I don't even know if most major US airbases actually had *hardened* shelters for the bomber wings, did they?

Adrian destroys this argument very effectively.

Fair enough, but whats the cost of running the bombers at those points? If you're say going to keep a third of your fleet in the air at all times at failsafe points, what kind of cost is that going to run up in fuel, tankers, airframe damage / aircraft life and so on?

We don't keep them circulating at fail-safe points all the time. Just when we need them there. That's the whole point; we can send them out when we need to and then bring them back.

[MKSheppard]

Nope. Still wrong. Turck convoys set up and ready to move. A lot of equipment can be pre-positioned though. However, the dispersal airfields are such that they have a lot of the stuff for their routine operations only

To wit:



Beech aircraft was going to do an Alert Pod, which would allow a lot of things that required engine start up, etc or ground power to be done from a self contained pod that the B-70 could carry.

[Kane Starkiller]

If a new heavy bomber is under development I wonder if it will have "freakin' laser beams attached to it's head".
Seriously solid state lasers already reached 100kW so a new bomber could have a few installed in order to shoot down enemy SAMs. If it's too bulky maybe bombers could fly in pairs, one carrying 20 nukes or something the other outfitted with lasers shooting down missiles.

[Vympel]

If Russia can get the S-400 working (at the moment the "S-400 batteries" actually use upgraded S-300PMU missiles)

Upgraded S-300PM2 (48N6D) missiles, to be exact - the "U" in that designation only applies to export systems.

The Fakel special missiles have been tested IIRC, so I don't think the replacement of 48H6E and 48H6E2 is far down the road.

48N6E and 48N6E2 are the designations for export missiles - it's 48N6 and 48N6D for indigenous standard systems respectively, IIRC. S-400 currently uses the 48N6DM. It's almost certainly compatible with the 9M96 / 9M96D missiles of the S-300PM-2 as well, but whether they're equipped with them is another matter.

I'm unsure what the range on 48N6DM is - either 250km or 300km. In a way, S-400 could be said to be S-300PM-3 until the 40N6 is operational.

As far as the MiG-31s are concerned, MiG-31s equipped should be capable of taking out the B-70s ordnance themselves, taking out incoming missiles is after all one of their jobs.