Are bombers obsolete?

[Starglider]

I don't think the US could've built anything THAT superior to what the Russians have

The YF-12 had over half a mach of speed on the Mig-31, comparable radar and much more range at max speed... at it's first flight was 10 years earlier. Had the funds been invested, the US could have built a far superior interceptor fleet, and as Stuart pointed out against XB-70 class bombers high mach interceptors are your best bet.

Making an airtight, X/B-1/2/70 proof IADS to protect a bigass fuckoff nation really is NOT economical or practical

I don't think F-12s would have a problem killing B-1s and Tu-160s. Hitting the later at extreme standoff range might need some tanker support and forward/airborne radars, but if the blackjacks are hanging back and lobbing subsonic non-stealthy low-altitude Kh-55s, the missiles can easily be mopped up by SAMs and lesser fighters.

The US could easily have built 500 XB-70s if the will had been there. What could the USSR have built? Not dirty paper or mock ups, actual aircraft? In reality they built one miniature XB-70 with greatly inferior performance (less than mach 2 demonstrated, insufficient range for strategic applications) and fielded a handful of enlarged B-1A type aircraft. I very much doubt the USSR could have fielded a credible competitor to the B-70 before they imploded. Though it would have been nice if they tried, it might have hastened the collapse.

So, yeah, if it comes down to war then the best defense is a good offense - namely, if you want to defeat the enemy's bombers, then you're going to have to hit them when they're still on the ground.

Defeat them on the ground how? We've already seen how the US can get all its bombers airborne before the missiles hit even in absence of viable ABM. A sensible cold war strategy would have included the 500 B-70s /and/ comprehensive ABM.

[K. A. Pital]

The YF-12 had over half a mach of speed on the Mig-31, comparable radar and much more range at max speed... at it's first flight was 10 years earlier.

The YF-12 was also much more costly in construction and exploit. The MiG-25 and 31 line was much more simple and robust. That's why scant few A-12 successors were built and the fighter lineage never even got to the birth point; at the same time, there was 1500 MiG-25 and 31 built.

Had the funds been invested, the US could have built a far superior interceptor fleet, and as Stuart pointed out against XB-70 class bombers high mach interceptors are your best bet.

Yes, but it would've been a massive waste of funds for no reason - the USSR did not field XB-70 class bombers and abandoned this idea when it became clear the US effort is too ill-fated to give birth to anything that can be a serious threat. Instead, the priorities shifted to making the bombers more economic and having a reduced RCS.

I don't think F-12s would have a problem killing B-1s and Tu-160s. Hitting the later at extreme standoff range might need some tanker support and forward/airborne radars, but if the blackjacks are hanging back and lobbing subsonic non-stealthy low-altitude Kh-55s, the missiles can easily be mopped up by SAMs and lesser fighters.

Even non-stealthy ALCMs with extreme range pose a great threat to an air-defence which has lax emplacements.

The US could easily have built 500 XB-70s if the will had been there. What could the USSR have built? Not dirty paper or mock ups, actual aircraft?

If the USSR had been building such an aircraft, do you really think it's industrial economy would not have coped with that? The real problem is that the USSR never gave a flying fuck about building craft like these; the T-4 was the only attempt, and it wasn't terminated because the project was in principle unable to reach Mach 3 or something - it was terminated because the USSR decided to shift priorities, quite like the USA. The problem with completely ignoring reaction is that while priority shifts happen due to own military concerns, the reaction can still be there.

The US built no combat-worthy XB-70s and scant few A-12 and successors. The USSR built 1500+ Mach 3 capable interceptors of a more simple and robust construction, being far cheaper in exploit and all that.

I'm not sure why you assume that if there had been a real XB-70 fleet, the USSR would not have pushed through with it's own Mach 3 bomber projects. The T-4 was designed as a naval hunter and thus had sufficient range for it's proposed tasks.

Defeat them on the ground how? We've already seen how the US can get all its bombers airborne before the missiles hit even in absence of viable ABM. A sensible cold war strategy would have included the 500 B-70s /and/ comprehensive ABM.

Put SRBMs on Cuba; press onward the deployment of SSBNs. A strike against any airfields in Europe has a good chance of wiping out a lot of the airpower there; if the US' airfields would happen to be in the same situation, why not do it? Yes, it required a great deal of politicking and after the CMC in 1962, the chance has been utterly lost; but that's a counter-strategy to the bomber horde.

Besides, geographic advantages can make it inherently harder to defeat a nation regardless of what you do. Stripe these advantages from the USA (oceanic isolation), and you'll have a far easier time blasting it to crap even with workable ABM and hordes of bombers simply because the reaction time against incoming missiles would be so small that few to none of the weapons above would have time to react.

[K. A. Pital]

The greatest problem with all this "hurrah" about ICBMs going the way of the dodo and people duking it out old-style with bombers and stuff ignores the principal option of putting a hypersonic penetrator on-board an ICBM or creating other types of combined weapons (earth-space-earth, etc. etc.).

In fact, despite the inherent dangers that the ICBM and an ICBM-centered approach brings, the speed that the ICBM offers is too tempting even for the US military to just forego; this is evident in the evolution of the US "Prompt Global Strike" programme which is still centered around a modified/new ICBM tipped with a penetrator - DESPITE the massive risk of nuclear war that such a reckless approach brings. Even under Obama this shit resurfaces again. Heh.

ICBMs are dangerous, and cannot be removed when fired. But they can reach any place within an hour. The military so loves rapid reaction that it just can't think of letting this capability to wither away.

[Starglider]

That's why scant few A-12 successors were built and the fighter lineage never even got to the birth point

As was discussed earlier, the F-12 was funded and ready for production.

at the same time, there was 1500 MiG-25 and 31 built.

Hordes of MiG-25s were needed because it was so hideously short ranged (even moreso at mach 2.8, the practical top speed). The F-12 had the speed and range to cover much larger areas.

Had the funds been invested, the US could have built a far superior interceptor fleet

Yes, but it would've been a massive waste of funds for no reason - the USSR did not field XB-70 class bombers

As I said, I doubt the USSR would be able to field a B-70 equivalent at all before it collapsed, but building a mere 100 F-12s would be a sensible precaution. They are very good for intercepting lesser threats and having the expertise around and production line in storage means more could quickly be built if the USSR did manage to produce a credible bomber threat.

and abandoned this idea when it became clear the US effort is too ill-fated to give birth

The Soviet generals wanted a Mig-21 swarm for their fantasy ground invasion of Europe. They breathed a sigh of relief when unprecedented idiocy in the US leadership pissed away strategic advantages to the point that the USSR could temporarily relax that part of the arms race.

Even non-stealthy ALCMs with extreme range pose a great threat to an air-defence which has lax emplacements.

ALCMs can be intercepted by F-106s and other second tier interceptors.

The US could easily have built 500 XB-70s if the will had been there. What could the USSR have built? Not dirty paper or mock ups, actual aircraft?

If the USSR had been building such an aircraft, do you really think it's industrial economy would not have coped with that?

Raw economic capacity is irrelevant if you do not have the technological sophistication to produce even one aircraft. The US produced the XB-70 that successfully cruised at mach 3 and the A-12 series that cruised at mach 3.2 plus. All the USSR managed at mach 3 were stunt flights of uselessly short duration that destroyed the aircraft's engines.

The USSR built 1500+ Mach 3 capable interceptors of a more simple and robust construction

No, it did not; those aircraft were not mach 3 capable in any tactically useful sense. You are willfully ignoring the extensive prior analysis of B-70 vs Mig-25/31 that has occured here, and the general inadequacy of the later vs the former.

I'm not sure why you assume that if there had been a real XB-70 fleet, the USSR would not have pushed through with it's own Mach 3 bomber projects.

I'm sure they would have tried, but they would have trailed ten years behind the US, and the cost would either have forced cuts in the rest of the Warsaw Pact force structure or forced an earlier collapse (both good outcomes of course).

Put SRBMs on Cuba; press onward the deployment of SSBNs.

Perhaps Stuart would like to comment on the effectiveness of US ABM vs Cuban SRBMs. Given the limited threat vector and relatively low RV velocities, I suspect it will be high. You can be sure ABM would have been harder to cancel if the USSR was threatening US retaliatory capabilities so severely.

A strike against any airfields in Europe has a good chance of wiping out a lot of the airpower there

Irrelevant to the B-70s.

Yes, it required a great deal of politicking and after the CMC in 1962, the chance has been utterly lost

So irrelevant by the time the B-70 was in serious development, never mind in service.

Stripe these advantages from the USA (oceanic isolation)

Irrelevant to real-world strategy. We live on Earth, not Fantasy Planet Stas.

ignores the principal option of putting a hypersonic penetrator on-board an ICBM

No, it does not. Again you are deliberately ignoring extensive previous discussion of this and somehow expecting to get away with it. Maneuvering RVs and depressed trajectory shots sacrifice most of the payload and have very limited effectiveness. Using a booster launch for a hypersonic aircraft (instead of a runway launch) is a viable option, but that is in no way an ICBM, as it is no longer ballistic.

this is evident in the evolution of the US "Prompt Global Strike" programme which is still centered around a modified/new ICBM tipped with a penetrator

And again trying to pretend that prior discussion of this didn't happen. This project appears to be a desperate attempt to get some utility out of obsolete ICBMs, and is only viable for striking undefended (no ABM) nations.

But they can reach any place within an hour. The military so loves rapid reaction

The military 'loves' a capability that has never been used?

[K. A. Pital]

As was discussed earlier, the F-12 was funded and ready for production.

How is that relevant to my point? If you insist or pretend to be so dumb as to require explanations, however, I can remind you that the USAF ordered less than a hundred such interceptors.

Hordes of MiG-25s were needed because it was so hideously short ranged (even moreso at mach 2.8, the practical top speed). The F-12 had the speed and range to cover much larger areas.

Except your point is only partly correct. "Had the speed and range" blah blah blah. It's the German Tiger superiority complex all over again - "look, our tank produced in miniscule numbers can kill any enemy tank so uberz!" However, quantity has a quality of it's own. The F-12 could not be everywhere at once in case of defending against a massive attack. Which is obviously absolutely intolerable for a modern IADS - maybe for the USA that would've been somewhat tolerable, with oceanic isolation and all that, but it was absolutely intolerable for any continental nation. Having scant few extremely long-range interceptors did not correspond to the necessities of defence.

As I said, I doubt the USSR would be able to field a B-70 equivalent at all before it collapsed, but building a mere 100 F-12s would be a sensible precaution. They are very good for intercepting lesser threats and having the expertise around and production line in storage means more could quickly be built if the USSR did manage to produce a credible bomber threat.

They are good for intercepting threats in their paradigm of supersonic combat. They would be ill-suited to intercept craft going very low, VLO craft, and finally, they would be extremely vulnerable to attrition. As an extra, they would've been great, no doubt. However, a realistic need did not manifest. Even the reconaissance version of the plane is now scrapped along with the tooling - space capabilities and the geopolitical dominance of the USA have rendered it useless.

The Soviet generals wanted a Mig-21 swarm for their fantasy ground invasion of Europe. They breathed a sigh of relief when unprecedented idiocy in the US leadership pissed away strategic advantages to the point that the USSR could temporarily relax that part of the arms race.

MiG-21 swarm? For ground attacks? What the hell is that supposed to mean, Starglider? I think the idiocy in this phrase is all yours; from "Soviet generals" to "MiG-21 swarms" to "their fantasy". Do explain.

ALCMs can be intercepted by F-106s and other second tier interceptors.

How many successful intercepts of low-flying ALCMs have the F-106s achieved? I'm sure there were tests; do tell me. I know there were tests against high-flying, very notable and fast drones (BOMARC, etc). Were there tests against drones imitating the Kh-55 and similar missiles? What were the conditions and what were the results?

Raw economic capacity is irrelevant if you do not have the technological sophistication to produce even one aircraft. The US produced the XB-70 that successfully cruised at mach 3 and the A-12 series that cruised at mach 3.2 plus. All the USSR managed at mach 3 were stunt flights of uselessly short duration that destroyed the aircraft's engines.

The MiG-25 was a much simpler machine not requiring that much sophistication. However, a speed of Mach 2.83 is formidable on it's own, for such a simple scheme.

No, it did not; those aircraft were not mach 3 capable in any tactically useful sense. You are willfully ignoring the extensive prior analysis of B-70 vs Mig-25/31 that has occured here, and the general inadequacy of the later vs the former.

What a load of bullshit. I'm not saying the MiG-25 or 31 would be efficient against the B-70. You make strawmen or what? Technically, the MiG-31 and 25's slightly-below 3000kph speeds were more than adequate for such machines and with their numbers, provided the ability to defend from multiple threats.

I'm sure they would have tried, but they would have trailed ten years behind the US, and the cost would either have forced cuts in the rest of the Warsaw Pact force structure or forced an earlier collapse (both good outcomes of course).

The USSR started later; it had a massive inferiority even at the very start. The mere ability to compete with the USA required quite a lot of strain, and obviously a new demand for supersonic craft would be straining. I'm not sure why you assume it's a good thing the USSR would have to spend more on such bombers (it could basically forego ICBMs in favour of triplesonic craft, which are cheaper if we are to believe Stuart, and thus create a bomber-based nuclear triade). So your train of logic here is not well understood. If the USSR switches to a bomber-based triade, and cuts into ICBMs, that would change it's deterrent, but hardly impact the absolute volumes of spending par se.

You can be sure ABM would have been harder to cancel if the USSR was threatening US retaliatory capabilities so severely.

That's certainly clear; but I don't think the USSR took that into consideration when removing forces from Cuba.

Irrelevant to the B-70s.

How so? Shorter-ranged attack means like SLBMs striking against U.S. airfields can destroy the bombers before takeoff.

Irrelevant to real-world strategy. We live on Earth, not Fantasy Planet Stas.

I've merely explained that the bomber-centric defence option is only useful for isolated nations like the USA; not all-around acceptable.

Using a booster launch for a hypersonic aircraft (instead of a runway launch) is a viable option, but that is in no way an ICBM, as it is no longer ballistic.

Of course - it's a missile which is a modified ICBM for the ascent; then the payload which is an aircraft penetrator, is launched above.

And again trying to pretend that prior discussion of this didn't happen. This project appears to be a desperate attempt to get some utility out of obsolete ICBMs, and is only viable for striking undefended (no ABM) nations.

How so? The hypersonic penetrator is non-ballistic.

[Shroom Man 777]

I don't think the US could've built anything THAT superior to what the Russians have

The YF-12 had over half a mach of speed on the Mig-31, comparable radar and much more range at max speed... at it's first flight was 10 years earlier. Had the funds been invested, the US could have built a far superior interceptor fleet, and as Stuart pointed out against XB-70 class bombers high mach interceptors are your best bet.

Sorry, I was talking about SAMs and stuff since Chocla was using the S-400 as an example of USSR/Russian modern capabilities. I don't think the US could've built any surface-to-air-missile THAT superior to what the Russians have?

[Simon_Jester]

The US could easily have built 500 XB-70s if the will had been there. What could the USSR have built? Not dirty paper or mock ups, actual aircraft? In reality they built one miniature XB-70 with greatly inferior performance (less than mach 2 demonstrated, insufficient range for strategic applications) and fielded a handful of enlarged B-1A type aircraft. I very much doubt the USSR could have fielded a credible competitor to the B-70 before they imploded. Though it would have been nice if they tried, it might have hastened the collapse.

Probably they would have settled for the ICBM deterrent? Which, you reply, is what ABM is for, but I really do wonder whether we could have feasibly built enough ABM to feel confident in surviving a mass Soviet ICBM strike. Knocking down individual missiles, yes; knocking down hundreds or thousands of the buggers is a bit more ambitious, in terms of the scope of defenses required.

And yes, I'm sure someone has done the math. Nor would I be that surprised to learn that the answer is "yes, ABM on that scale is affordable." But I can't remember seeing the math, you see...

[Shroom Man 777]

How does the Soviet attempt at using the SS-18 to make a Fractional Orbital Bombardment System work at defeating ABM?

[phongn]

How does the Soviet attempt at using the SS-18 to make a Fractional Orbital Bombardment System work at defeating ABM?

US ABM was intended to defeat such systems.

Probably they would have settled for the ICBM deterrent? Which, you reply, is what ABM is for, but I really do wonder whether we could have feasibly built enough ABM to feel confident in surviving a mass Soviet ICBM strike. Knocking down individual missiles, yes; knocking down hundreds or thousands of the buggers is a bit more ambitious, in terms of the scope of defenses required.

Well, it also depends on what ABM is for - you might argue its designed to make an incoming ballistic missile attack totally infeasible in destroying what needs to be destroyed. The relatively thin Sentinel shield was supposed to cost $5 billion; a thick shield $40bn (FY1968 dollars, or so claims Time, whose numbers may not be entirely reliable).

[Simon_Jester]

Well, that depends on your definition of "what needs to be destroyed." For example, a missile shield covering the key military bases that support the US nuclear force would allow us to keep fighting for hours or days longer in a nuclear war, and therefore cause more damage to the enemy. But it would not necessarily save us from taking damage that, in the long term, would make fighting the war in the first place incredibly unwise.

Let me put it this way:

We can imagine an ABM defense that limits the Soviet missile deterrent, making it impossible for them to prevent us from wrecking them. With this system in place, we could be quite confident of the USSR getting hit by many more megatons than the US, and of the US being in relatively better shape after the war.

We can also imagine an ABM defense that neutralizes the Soviet missile deterrent, in the sense of limiting damage to levels that would not cause disastrous harm to the long-term well being of the US. In this case, not only would the US be in relatively better shape, it would be in decent absolute shape, still capable of doing all the things it did before in recognizable form.

Obviously, the second defense would be more expensive and comprehensive than the first. As long as the US did not build the second, the Russians would not have needed to compete with the US in high-speed bomber designs, and arguably not even in air defense capability against such. Because while the US would be able to devastate them with bombers, the Soviets would still retain the ability to devastate the US in turn with missiles. They'd have an effective deterrent, without having to spend themselves into the ground matching the larger US budget in every particular.

Only in the latter case (high speed bomber force combined with ABM defenses thick enough to make the Strategic Rocket Forces irrelevant) would the Soviets need to invest in high speed bombers to penetrate our air defenses as a deterrent against our own high speed bombers doing the same to them.

[Shroom Man 777]

How does the Soviet attempt at using the SS-18 to make a Fractional Orbital Bombardment System work at defeating ABM?

US ABM was intended to defeat such systems.

I thought FOBS was meant to defeat ABM. Or was that just early warning radars?

If all else fails, the Russkies might end up making a Projekt Plutoski! Oh no!

[Admiral Valdemar]

I think I've gone on about the Flying Crowbar enough on here, but I would dearly love to see a Soviet attempt, if only to see how much more insane they could make the concept. Maybe stick a solid state ABL onboard for when you're out of nukes and have actual Mach 3+ interceptors threatening you (not that an F-12 would be doing that just off the deck very well...).

[Sea Skimmer]

I thought FOBS was meant to defeat ABM. Or was that just early warning radars?

If all else fails, the Russkies might end up making a Projekt Plutoski! Oh no!

The point of FOBS was was to exploit a huge gap in US early warning coverage. The original US BMEWS radar coverage was aimed straight at the USSR, and could not warn of contacts coming from the southern hemisphere. So the idea of FOBS was to fly the long way around the planet and hit the US from an unexpected direction.
This vulnerability was short lived. The US soon added its massive Space Track radar aimed south, and then latter the Pave Paws system and Perimeter Attack Radar Characterization System (leftover radar from the Safeguard ABM system) to fill in all the gaps of coverage. These radars also provided the US with a certain depth of coverage against contacts coming over the north pole. Meanwhile the project 440L forward scatter radar also provided launch warning across the entire width of the USSR making a surprise FOBS attack all the less likely to accomplish anything.

http://www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/fdales/bmews.jpg This image shows BMEWS, Pave Paws and Parcs as they existed prior to the upgrade of the Fylingdales radar in the UK to have 360 degree coverage. It doesn't show spacetrack though which is why the US still looks kind of exposed to the south. Doesn't show or 440L either. But the point is you can see how with BMEWS only, the US would have been pretty wide open to non polar attacks.

The US did have some AN/FSS-7 radars deployed around the coast prior to Pave Paws, but these could only warning of a SLBM attack launched from within about 600 miles. Enough to counter 1960s Soviet ballistic missile subs, but not FOBS. Pave Paws was deployed starting in 1979.

The main Soviet FOBS missile was the R36-o which falls in the US code name SS-9 series. The SS-18 based FOBS was never deployed, if it existed at all as the idea was already obsolete. R36-o itself became totally obsolete once US coverage improved (accuracy with FOBS is godawful so they have no other valid mission except evading radar coverage) but it appears it persisted in service until it was scrapped under the SALT II treaty in 1983. SALT II was never ratifed by the US, but both sides honored its terms anyway. The Soviets had another totally dedicated FOBS missile which got the SS-10 number, it was called GR-1 by the Soviets, but it was never deployed.

[MKSheppard]

I did a shitty caculation of maths. An F/A-18 Superhornet can carry 17,750lbs of external ordnance, bombs, fuel tanks, etc. We'll assume that it carries ALL that weight in warheads. A Nimitz-class can carry 90 aircraft at maximum, let's assume that it's ALL F/A-18s - with no other aircraft on board.

17,750*90 = 1,597,500 total warload of 90 Superbugs on an aircraft carrier, assuming all the planes on the carrier are Superbugs and all the Bugs are maxed out on all bombs.

A B-52H carries 70,000lbs of bombs and shit. Now, dividing 1597500 (total warload of the carrier's birds) / 70000 (warload of a single B-52) = 22.8214286 B-52s.

You need 22 B-52s full of bombs to match a carrier full of 90 Superbugs full of bombs.

.......

god i am turning into shep! nooo! WARK WARK WARK!

How did I ever miss this thread?

Oh PS:



Bomber Loadouts

It takes just 15 x B-1Bs to match the 500 lb total stowed bombload of a SCB-160 (CVN-65 Enterprise) carrier; or if you want to go by rough tonnage; only 50 B-1Bs to match the bomb tonnage of the Carrier.

BTW; in one of the folders at the NHHC-AVH titled "Attack Carrier Capabilities" they had a fairly long discussion of 1950s air defense; inclduing talk of averages from 58 simulated raids by B-45 Tornadoes.

The B-45s came in at 40,000 feet and were detected 155 miles from the task force on average. Interceptions occured at an average of 38 miles from the task force and were carried out by F2Hs and F9Fs. 68% of B-45s were killed, but 32% got through.

[MKSheppard]

The F-12 could not be everywhere at once in case of defending against a massive attack.

Except the USAF wanted 12 squadrons of the thing:

Recommended FY 1967-71 Strategic Offensive and Defensive Forces
The Air Force proposes a force of 12 squadrons (216 U.E. aircraft) of the F-12 to begin deployment in FY 1969 and complete deployment by FY 1973. Although this force would provide greatly increased combat effectiveness, its very great cost ($6.6 billion in FY 1967-71 period) would be consistent only with a decision to seek a very large and effective Damage Limiting program against the Soviet Union, and then only if the Soviets increased their bomber threat in both numbers and quality. Neither of these conditions is in prospect at this time.

[K. A. Pital]

The F-12 could not be everywhere at once in case of defending against a massive attack.

Except the USAF wanted 12 squadrons of the thing:

Recommended FY 1967-71 Strategic Offensive and Defensive Forces
The Air Force proposes a force of 12 squadrons (216 U.E. aircraft) of the F-12 to begin deployment in FY 1969 and complete deployment by FY 1973. Although this force would provide greatly increased combat effectiveness, its very great cost ($6.6 billion in FY 1967-71 period) would be consistent only with a decision to seek a very large and effective Damage Limiting program against the Soviet Union, and then only if the Soviets increased their bomber threat in both numbers and quality. Neither of these conditions is in prospect at this time.

Why was the actual procurement order limited to 93 craft?

[TimothyC]

Why was the actual procurement order limited to 93 craft?

The 93 was just the first order. There would have been more ordered in later budgets.

[K. A. Pital]

200 is still scant few, especially with no clear successor to legacy machines. No?

[Sea Skimmer]

200 is still scant few, especially with no clear successor to legacy machines. No?

A 'clear successor' depends on how the threat evolves. At the time the USSR had no operational supersonic bombers with enough range to be a threat, so the issue was not exactly pressing. In real life the F-106 served all the way until 1988, though replacement with the F-15 and F-16ADV had begun in the early 1980s.

If the US had really cared about air defense and bought the F-12, then its likely a completely new interceptor design would have emerged as a future replacement for the F-106. As it was some of the earlier proposals for the Advanced Technology Fighter, which became F-22, actually started from the basis of being F-12 follow-ons with sustained mach 3 speed. This was before the USAF had made its mind up and went heavily for stealth. The F-15 was supposed to have mach 2.7 performance early on too, but this was dropped because turbofans don't make very much thrust at such high speeds. Fuel consumption would have had to be massive to power a huge afterburner.

[Shroom Man 777]

Question:

Instead of purchasing a crapload of SAMs to form an IADS that will STILL get penetrated by bombers, why not just buy MORE bombers of your own instead? So even if your country gets nuked, your bombers can still MITO into the air and counterstrike whoever struck you first? Even without bombers, but with ICBMs or SSBNs or whatever form of deterrent is there, wouldn't a sufficient deterrent that guarantees a retaliatory strike that will STILL destroy whoever struck you first, be a better "defense" than ineffectual SAMs? By assuring that even if the enemy strikes you first, you can still strike back and incur assured destruction, that would make the enemy think that it's not such a good idea to attack in the first place, and thus a survivable and potent deterrent that can still kill the living fuck out of the enemy even if he hits first is the most potent form of defense, am i rite? Best defense is a good offense. The best discouragement for anyone who's thinking of trying funny would be the capability to still fuck him up with a good thermonuclear counter-offensive!

[Starglider]

Instead of purchasing a crapload of SAMs to form an IADS that will STILL get penetrated by bombers, why not just buy MORE bombers of your own instead?

Deploying SAMs isn't a waste; it forces the enemy to invest in more sophisticated bombers, which is more expensive, which means virtual attrition. Even if you do go for bombers, it isn't just a question of splashing cash. Advanced bombers are really hard to make, and if your country's aerospace industry isn't up to it you can't start building them no matter what your budget is. For example there's no way China could start cranking out wings of B-2s or even B-70s even if they redirected all their military budget to the task. They'd have to build up all the prerequisite specialised industry and expertise first.

Best defense is a good offense. The best discouragement for anyone who's thinking of trying funny would be the capability to still fuck him up with a good thermonuclear counter-offensive!

Ah, but we all know the subhuman commies are fully prepared to sacrifice 90% of their population so long as their carefully immersed-and-sandbagged machine tools survive, so that the 10% of their population shielded in their massive bunker complexes can open an insurmountable Tractor Gap vs the devastated post-nuclear US.

If your opponent is thinking in terms of winnable nuclear wars or is simply irrational a purely offense based deterrence strategy is very risky.

[Shroom Man 777]

Well, of course IADS would be very useful in shooting down as many of the enemy bombers/missiles as you can, because the more bombers/missiles you shoot down the less bombers/missiles get to kill your people (which would make the enemy attack less effective). But an awesome deterrent would be the first line of defense, a big stick that'd scare the enemy so he won't even think of sending bombers/missiles, so you won't need to use your IADS to shoot down any bombers/missiles in the first place!

[Starglider]

But an awesome deterrent would be the first line of defense, a big stick that'd scare the enemy so he won't even think of sending bombers/missiles, so you won't need to use your IADS to shoot down any bombers/missiles in the first place!

So how exactly do you scare the 'winnable nuclear war' analysts, or NK-style regiemes that do not give a shit about the wellbeing of their populace?

[Shroom Man 777]

It's not like they want to wage nuclear war. Even to them, nuclear war is something horrible that should be avoided at all costs.

[adam_grif]

or NK-style regiemes that do not give a shit about the wellbeing of their populace?

Being a ruthless tyrant suddenly stops being fun when the country you rule over turns into a pile of radioactive ash. They ain't gonna risk nuclear war.