Draka vs TBO America

[Stuart]

I would like to add that I wonder why no one else has built or seriously considered to build such a thing after the B-70 got cancelled. I mean the British cancelled the Avro 730 and went with missiles instead, and the Russians ditched their T-4s, the Tu-160s were reduced to Mach 2.

Your conflating different incidents that occurred for different reasons. The British dumped their bombers because they had only two to four minutes warning of an attack and that made getting them off the ground virtually impossible. They had to be kept on airborne alert because they would be destroyed if they weren't. The British dumped land-based ballistic missiles for the same reason. They couldn't be fired off fast enough. Getting the missiles out to sea was the only viable alternative. The Soviets dumped theirs because they ran out of money. It was their bombers or the MiG-23/27 (a very explicit choice)> However, note that they're spending scarce defense money on keeping the Tu-160 operational and upgrading it -there are rumors they may be reopening the production line.

The only airplanes to be manufactured to reach those speeds seem to have been the SR-71 and the MiG-25 and -31. With those three exceptions the Chinese, the EU, the Soviets, and even the USA, seems to have tucked triple sonic fighters and bombers away and never bothered to revive the concept.

Because, once ultra-high altitude/high speed penetration was dropped, the technologies that went with it went bye-bye and are very expensive to recreate. So, we're stuck with what we've got, the legacy of the disastrous low-altitude penetration fetish of the 1960s and 1970s. If we'd gone the other way, we'd now be operating triple-sonic aircraft without thinking anything odd about it but going to missiles would be imposisble due to the hideous cost of recreating the technology base.

Did technology retard after the B-70 was retired? I mean I would assume that engines, materials and knowledge of aerodynamics has improved a lot since the 1960s.

Not so much retarded as lost. The aircraft being put into service didn't need those technologies so they died. Another example; the B-52 has a single wing spare structure that we can't make today. It was commonplace in the 1950s but design art went in a different way, later aircraft didn't use it and the ability to build such components was lost. Now, if anything happens to that component (fatigue, cracking etc), the B-52 is toast. Now can we put the B-52 back into production for that reason - we would have to re-tool almost the entire aviation industry.

[K. A. Pital]

The boats won't be there.

An ambitious assumption. The readiness coefficient of Russian submarines in the 90's dropped to almost zero. The solution is not building new subs, but improving the readiness. Exeter of the V.IF. details:

[...] as for "rustiness", you have already been explained that the KON (readiness coefficient) of older boats is often a lot higher than the same of new boats. In Russia, the best KON in the 90's was with the old boats. [...]
Same here by us, the pr.971 has not yet been adequately mastered (that's why they cling desperately to 671PTM. And that's why most of the sailors assume 671PTM to be superior to 971. There can be no doubt that pr.955 boats will have a very low KON for a very long time and thank God if by 2020 they're fully "operationable". [...]

The fact is, patrolling intensity per boat and patrolling number of boats are very low.

It's a LOT higher than yours, almost by an order of magnitude.

Sure. Ours is almost zero, yours is somewhere by 0.5.

That makes for a safer world for all of us.

Valid point. So why don't you not put something like A-135 around New York/DC?

In fact, there are no missiles in widespraed service even today that have a reasonable chance of killing a B-70.

Perhaps not. But there are Mig-25 "manned missiles" created to counter a possible Mach 3 bomber threat. Those are good enough I guess.

I happen to know that the S-400 system doesn't work at all

You know this from first-hand or second-hand sources? I don't know the level of readiness of the S-400 for serial output, perhaps it's not ready and won't be for a while, right. But the guy is speaking about tests.

I'm sure they are convinced.

One of them conducted tracking of the SR-71.

In reality, S-300 does, as I said have a marginal capability against SR-71 targets and an even more marginal capability against the higher-flying, faster and more manoeuverable B-70.

Pardon me, is the B-70 higher flying? I thought it's "top" is lower than the SR-71s? The B-70 has a practical alt. at ~21 kms, while the SR-71 has it at ~25kms. The SR-71's dynamic "top" is also higher and almost a record (37kms), but that's irrelevant, dynamic tops are not the important battle characteristic.

Clearly the B-70 is lower, and therefore more vulnerable to missiles and the MiG-25-type planes. Though, feel free to correct me. I'm no friend to American planes.

"Saphier" gunners from VIF tell that the standard instruction had striking the SR-71 in the forward hemisphere, and they had several "locks" on the thing. MIG-25's "manned missiles" are also a lot cheaper to maintain and make (than B-70/SR-71 type planes) and as pilots say, they could also take the SR-71 on in the forward hemisphere.

[Stuart]

An ambitious assumption. The readiness coefficient of Russian submarines in the 90's dropped to almost zero. The solution is not building new subs, but improving the readiness. Exeter of the V.IF. details

We have to plan on worst-case presumptions. We are very well aware of what the readiness status was and is.

Sure. Ours is almost zero, yours is somewhere by 0.5.

Now compare that with the readiness of silo-based missiles (long way from 100 percent)

Valid point. So why don't you not put something like A-135 around New York/DC?

We should. We did have them (or their equivalent). If we'd had them on 9/11 there's a good chance one of the two towers would still be standing. The fact we haven't got the is due to - wait for it - Robert Strange McNamara. Another story, we can go into if you like (I suggest somewhere else though)

Perhaps not. But there are Mig-25 "manned missiles" created to counter a possible Mach 3 bomber threat. Those are good enough I guess.

I'm afraid you guess wrong there. Neither the aircraft nor the missiles it carried are capable of doing the job. They're great as B-52 killers and had a good capability against the B-58 but that's all.

You know this from first-hand or second-hand sources?

First hand.

One of them conducted tracking of the SR-71.

That's not meaningful. Tracking is a long, long way from doing an intercept. A standard air traffic control radar can track an SR-71, it just can't do anything about it. And your gut wasn't tracking an SR-71, he thought he was tracking an SR-71, The EW system on board makes it more that probable he was chasing his own tail.

Pardon me, is the B-70 higher flying? I thought it's "top" is lower than the SR-71s? The B-70 has a practical alt. at ~21 kms, while the SR-71 has it at ~25kms. The SR-71's dynamic "top" is also higher and almost a record (37kms), but that's irrelevant, dynamic tops are not the important battle characteristic.

The published figures for the B-70 are for AV-1, the first prototype, This had structural deficiencies and lower-powered engines that restricted it to mach 3.1 and 77,500 feet. AV-2 had more thrust and the fully-developed structure that gave it Mach 3.3 and 85,000 feet - only it was lost in an accident before it could be properly tested. AV-3 was the full-scale development prototype that would have been capable of the designed performance , Mach 3.4 and 90,000 feet plus. That's just about the limits by the way, no aircraft with conventional jets is going to exceed those limits.

"Saphier" gunners from VIF tell that the standard instruction had striking the SR-71 in the forward hemisphere, and they had several "locks" on the thing.

Frontal hemisphere attacks are the only ones that work at all. Beam-on attacks require the missiles to exceed their G-limits and tail chases burn too much fuel. So the instructions you quote are pretty much standard for intercepts of high-speed aircraft. Havinga lock is nice but don't prove anything, as I said, the Los Angeles air traffic control radars frequently tracked SR-71s. Tracking something and intercepting something are entirely different problems

MIG-25's "manned missiles" are also a lot cheaper to maintain and make (than B-70/SR-71 type planes) and as pilots say, they could also take the SR-71 on in the forward hemisphere.

But their PK is small against an SR-71 (whatever your pilots claimed, they never managed it despite a lot of determined efforts - and history shows if they could have shot one down, they would have). Its vanishingly small against a B-70. Following your argument to its logical conclusion, a MiG-3 (a very superior high altitude interceptor for its day) is even cheaper yet and doesn't have a lower chance of killing a B-70.

Now, if you'd argued a MiG-31, that would be a somewhat different matter. That's a MUCH better aircraft than the -25 and has very much better missiles. A MiG-31 interceptor fleet would make the B-70 crews work harder but the PK is still only just into double digits. Again, we have SR-71 experience to fall back on. The MiG-31s tried to shoot down SR-71s and failed. Consistently. That doesn't augur well.

Note, to do an intercept, it isn;t just necessary to have performance equivalent to the target, it requires a substantial performance excess over the target and that's aerodynamically impossible with the engines and materials we have at the moment. If we get scramjet fighters and bombers, then the rules change completely, we get a big boost in altitude and that allows a big boost in speed.

[K. A. Pital]

We have to plan on worst-case presumptions.

Exactly why fake silos + real silos are the way for attrition. The enemy never knows which one is going to fire.

Now compare that with the readiness of silo-based missiles (long way from 100 percent)

The silos have a clear advantage - the real percentage of their readiness does not impact the behaviour of the enemy towards your silos.

We should. We did have them (or their equivalent).

The technology is not that far out there. Modern SAMs can serve as a base for such systems, so why aren't they employed all around in various countries? Does Britain have an ABM?

Another story, we can go into if you like (I suggest somewhere else though)

Interesting. McNamara is the reason for stopping ABM exploitation? I thought you had an operable system set up but then stopped exploiting it for some reason.

Neither the aircraft nor the missiles it carried are capable of doing the job.

Well, the follow-up of this family (MiG-31) can be used then. After all, the B-70 "as is", meeting all objectives, never came to be.

First hand.

Strange. Will have to ask Nikolsky on that.

AV-3 was the full-scale development prototype that would have been capable of the designed performance , Mach 3.4 and 90,000 feet plus.

30kms? Well, that's better than SR-71. However, if you can take out fast cruise missiles with your SAMs, shouldn't you be technically able to have your SAMs take out the planes? After all, the structural stress on the SR-71 and planes of similar speeds greatly reduced it's maneuver - it's like almost a totally horizontal-flight plane. Or am I wrong? I doubt high-speed planes like this can do pirhouettes in dodging missiles, their main defense is speed and stealthiness.

Tracking something and intercepting something are entirely different problems

Intercepting requires the missle to be technically able to strike the machine, that's all.

But their PK is small against an SR-71 (whatever your pilots claimed, they never managed it despite a lot of determined efforts - and history shows if they could have shot one down, they would have).

I'm curious as to know if you have any first hand information on that from SR-71 pilots. I mean the number of attempts per plane (with SAMs, Migs) which constitute the "determined" efforts.

[MKSheppard]

The technology is not that far out there. Modern SAMs can serve as a base for such systems, so why aren't they employed all around in various countries?

Actually, the Soviet Union had a very very light screen of ABM capability around all of it's major cities by the late 1970s, due to largescale deployment of the SA-5 GAMMON, which could at least deal with an RV or two headed it's way (shoot enough missiles and you get a kill). PATRIOT had plenty of ABM capability, but that was cooled down and removed in the early design stages to "comply" with arms treaties. A lot of work on it today is putting that capability back in.

Interesting. McNamara is the reason for stopping ABM exploitation? I thought you had an operable system set up but then stopped exploiting it for some reason.

EDWARD KENNEDY

Living proof that Satan exists and makes sure that good people die, while scum live. He led the effort to defund the Stanley Mickelson ABM complex in the 1970s, after we had finally deployed an ABM system after 20 years of development.

[K. A. Pital]

A pguy from Monchegorsk details the SR-71 behaviour and their counteraction with MiG-31:

In the late 80's I served on Kolsky in Monchegorsk RTB. We locked our MiG-31's on SR-71s.
SR-71s flew to us on a schedule, 2 times a week on Tuesdays and Fridays from England. Sometimes they flew out of schedule if there was some sort of maneuvers or SSBN patrols in the sea.
They were always taken in a company of 2 MiG-31.
From time to time we had to scare them off (on an special order from Moscow). Once we even simulated a missile launch to scare him off.
He never broke the border. Always kept himself in international space.
With respect.

And more details on missile launch to scare off the SR-71:

Hanged a training missile without an engine but with a fully operable guiding head.
Then we worked on plan with the plane's radar - "search-lock-illuminate target".
The missile was with a radar guidance head, don't recall the type, firing distance around 150km.
SR-71 of course understood the action correctly, switched on the SOS and went off home on a forsage. [...]

They went fast, around 2500 km/h. Altitude around 20kms. We went up to 10kms, accelerated on a straight, then launched up to intercept as from a trampoline. Lock on was automatic from the ground.
The pilot was mostly needed for takeoff and landing. )
The most interesting thing was observing our planes on radar. First you have a dot on the IKO, which changes position slightly on each new observation. Then it speeds up and crosses half a screen in a few turnarounds.
SR-71s went on Kolsky on a huge turn around the border from the side of the land, sometimes made a full circle over the seas, to make two passes, and then went back to England by sea.
They never crossed over the pole to the States. We never saw them in the far zone, but always were informed by the command that an SR-71 is preparing for takeoff.
With respect.

May have more on it later.

[Stuart]

Exactly why fake silos + real silos are the way for attrition. The enemy never knows which one is going to fire.

All of which further complicates the command control system (already very expensive for ICBMs since it has to resist the attack and function while under nuclear attack. Only, there's a basic problem here. The cost of the missile is only a small proportion of the cost of the system as a whole. In fact, the cost of the missile is between 10 and 20 percent of the cost of the system as a whole (which was why your people tried to economize by building your silos in pairs with shared facilities. Dumb thing to do.) Since the cost of a dummy silo is 80 - 90 percent of the cost of a real silo plus missile, why not just stick another missile in it and have an extra real silo.

The silos have a clear advantage - the real percentage of their readiness does not impact the behaviour of the enemy towards your silos.

And the SSBNs also have a clear advantage, their damned hard to find and hard to kill. ICBM silos aren't.

The technology is not that far out there. Modern SAMs can serve as a base for such systems, so why aren't they employed all around in various countries? Does Britain have an ABM?

The technology is old hat, we had a comprehensive SAM system, in the USA (Nike) and that was easily expandable into an anti-missile system. Now, all the infratsructure is gone and it would cost a fortune to replace it. The UK had a not-too-shabby SAM system as well (Bloodhound and Thunderbird) and was playing with ABMs but the reaction times were a real problem.

Interesting. McNamara is the reason for stopping ABM exploitation? I thought you had an operable system set up but then stopped exploiting it for some reason.

The reason was McNamara. In a nutshell, he wanted to build a large conventional army and ARADCOM was gutted for the manpower and ABM/bombers were gutted for the funding. We can go into that later if you like, Boy, is this thread drifting far from its original topic!)

Well, the follow-up of this family (MiG-31) can be used then. After all, the B-70 "as is", meeting all objectives, never came to be.

MiG-31 is a lot more viable as I said.

30kms? Well, that's better than SR-71. However, if you can take out fast cruise missiles with your SAMs, shouldn't you be technically able to have your SAMs take out the planes? After all, the structural stress on the SR-71 and planes of similar speeds greatly reduced it's maneuver - it's like almost a totally horizontal-flight plane. Or am I wrong? I doubt high-speed planes like this can do pirhouettes in dodging missiles, their main defense is speed and stealthiness.

You're wrong. AV-3 was to be stressed to around 3.5 Gs That's pretty tight manoeuvering for a high-speed aircraft. It's more than comparable to a MiG-25 or -31. SR-71 can hardly manoever at all in comparison (Its G-stress is classified). The important thing is the area of probability of the aircraft. for a given time. That is the area within which the aircraft can be after any given time. For a manned bomber that area is large (for a B-70 its an ellipse almost 50 miles long by 30 wide after one minute). That's a hell of a fire control solution to manage. For an ICBM, that area is a single dot,

Intercepting requires the missle to be technically able to strike the machine, that's all.

That's a very big "all". It's very far from that easy. There's a mass of factors in there. Missile tech specs and a target tarck are only a small part of the problem.

I'm curious as to know if you have any first hand information on that from SR-71 pilots. I mean the number of attempts per plane (with SAMs, Migs) which constitute the "determined" efforts.

I know of at least four efforts by Soviet air defenses to nail an SR-71, one of which involved six MiG-31s. Never even came close. There are probably a lot more that I don't know about since they would be outside my "box".

[Stuart]

A pguy from Monchegorsk details the SR-71 behaviour and their counteraction with MiG-31

Read those carefully, with a professional eye. What they are actually saying confirms what I've been telling you; they couldn't stage an intercept, the SR-71s evaded them. Just locking on or tracking doesn't mean anything. As soona s teh SR-71 detected athreat, he gave them the slip. By the way, the "international air space" bit is a joke. The Soviet Union shot down plenty of aircraft (mostly RB-50s and RB-47s) over international air space whenever it could.

Anyway, International Air Space is a joke. Nobody knows what it is, it's never been defined.

[K. A. Pital]

Since the cost of a dummy silo is 80 - 90 percent of the cost of a real silo

Without most of the equipment, dummy C&C and all that?

And the SSBNs also have a clear advantage, their damned hard to find and hard to kill. ICBM silos aren't.

That's why it's a triade. Most of those in the MSNF (maritime strategic nuclear forces) argue that U-boats, while expensive, are less vulnerable when on patrol. But since the submarine KON does not change much and requires a lot of waste to bring it up to at least American levels (and I mean it, you have to spend money constantly on an U-boat, while a silo requires large initial invesment but then functions in almost a storage mode with what, 3-year checks), I think SSBNs are not a tool of attrition. After all, America wants to cut down it's SSBN number too according to latest news, and have a higher intensity for those on patrol. If I'm wrong though feel free to correct.

In a nutshell, he wanted to build a large conventional army and ARADCOM was gutted for the manpower and ABM/bombers were gutted for the funding.

Good enough. Thank you.

SR-71 can hardly manoever at all in comparison (Its G-stress is classified).

The guys on VIF said it was tested with very slight stresses and the results were not really good... at all.

AV-3 was to be stressed to around 3.5 Gs

I wonder if it could withstand such stress in practice. And, on a side note - is it true the US had to import titanium from the USSR to build the SR-71 for a lack of it's own?

For an ICBM, that area is a single dot

So then, why do SAMs have better capabilities against planes and only rudimentary ABM functions?

I know of at least four efforts by Soviet air defenses to nail an SR-71, one of which involved six MiG-31s. Never even came close.

It's somehow doubtful that they were on to kill the thing if, as guys from VIF who served in the PVO, say that even scaring the thing off with a fluke required special orders.

they couldn't stage an intercept, the SR-71s evaded them

They say they never launched, since mostly killing off planes which don't break borders isn't a good idea. The US didn't kill Russkie Bear _bombers_, not even scouts, flying around it's borders, only guided them.

The Soviet Union shot down plenty of aircraft (mostly RB-50s and RB-47s) over international air space whenever it could.

I know from a quite trusted person that the DPRK, PRC and other Soviet satellites in SEA, etc. tried to waste the SR-71 with hundreds/thousands of S-75, but were unsuccessful. Which led to the shipments of several S-200s to Kimjongilia, after which the SR-71s became more "careful".
The USSR knew in advance about SR-71s scheduled flights but the plane was careful enough to avoid the territorial zones of Soviet PVO (that's what "international space" means).

[K. A. Pital]

More on that from the VIF:

[...] In the 80's there were cases when the SR-71 cut trajectory, to be for 30-70 seconds in our airspace, the PVO did not have the reaction time and he's already out.

When MIG-31s were transferred to Kamchatka after the well-known incident the SR-71 activity in the region diminished and there were almost no incidents of them breaking into our airspace.

The SR-71's "father" A-12 was "brushed" by a S-75 in reality IIRC. This is why the Vietnamese, Chinese and DPRKs constitently used the S-75 even if the chance was minimal. Here's more from VIF:

(on S-75 use in Vietnam against SR-71 scout planes) [...] There were little problems with tracking and guiding the target, but the main reason of failure was the uncounted stress on the final flight stage which destroyed all the missiles.

[MKSheppard]

SR-71 Gloading:

Flight Manual

[Stuart]

Without most of the equipment, dummy C&C and all that?

If its going to be a convincing dummy, yes. If it isn;t an almost-exact replica of a real silo, we know it,

That's why it's a triad. Most of those in the MSNF (maritime strategic nuclear forces) argue that U-boats, while expensive, are less vulnerable when on patrol. But since the submarine KON does not change much and requires a lot of waste to bring it up to at least American levels (and I mean it, you have to spend money constantly on an U-boat, while a silo requires large initial invesment but then functions in almost a storage mode with what, 3-year checks), I think SSBNs are not a tool of attrition. After all, America wants to cut down it's SSBN number too according to latest news, and have a higher intensity for those on patrol. If I'm wrong though feel free to correct.

Silos require a lot more maintenance than that; otherwise their operational readiness drops alarmingly. If your people do only three-year maintance, then your operability is down to well below 50 percent. Also, remember the equation isn't one silo vs one submarine, its 24 silos plus their command control system plus their operational systems vs one submarine. Subs are expensive I agree, but we get what we pay for.

The real reason why the Russian defense system used ICBMs so extensively is that the Long Range Rocket Force came out of the Russian Army in general and the Russian artillery in particular. The Army is the senior service and artillery is the God of War. That put the ICBMs ina paramount position. In the US, the Navy and the Air Force were are senior services so their bits of the strategic deterrent are dominant.

The guys on VIF said it was tested with very slight stresses and the results were not really good... at all.

Not quite that bad but close. Structurally, the SR-71 was nothing like the B-70.

I wonder if it could withstand such stress in practice. And, on a side note - is it true the US had to import titanium from the USSR to build the SR-71 for a lack of it's own?

No reason why it shouldn't, the B-70's engineering wasn't that way out; there were no real surprises other than a plethora of fuel leaks. Yes,w e did get titanium from the USSR, we can get it form other places but that was the cheapest.

So then, why do SAMs have better capabilities against planes and only rudimentary ABM functions?

Because they are two totally different missions. A good ABM has only rudimentary SAM capabilities. Basically, an ABM has to hit a very fast-moving but non-manoeuvering and virtually defenseless target at relatively long range with short response times. That means a fast, long-range missile with negligable agility. A SAM has to hit a evading, highly agile target that is heavily defended with EW and ARMs but which is moving at slower speeds and shorter ranges. The two missions are virtually mutually exclusive, there is a little overlap, as Mark pointed out some SAMs can double as ABMs but its a narrow niche.

It's somehow doubtful that they were on to kill the thing if, as guys from VIF who served in the PVO, say that even scaring the thing off with a fluke required special orders.

They've shot down enough in the past. We worked on teh presumption if they could, they would. KAL-007 ring a bell?

I know from a quite trusted person that the DPRK, PRC and other Soviet satellites in SEA, etc. tried to waste the SR-71 with hundreds/thousands of S-75, but were unsuccessful. Which led to the shipments of several S-200s to Kimjongilia, after which the SR-71s became more "careful".

I can confirm some of that. It's thousands of S-75s and they never even got close. We weren't too worried about S-200 but why take chances? Its not as if we had a lot of SR-71s.

The USSR knew in advance about SR-71s scheduled flights but the plane was careful enough to avoid the territorial zones of Soviet PVO (that's what "international space" means).

That's your definition. There is no legally defined definition of international air space and there doesn't look likely to be one. It;s a gray area of international law.

Thank you for all your input Gospodin Stas, this is a fascinating conversation.

[Stuart]

The SR-71's "father" A-12 was "brushed" by a S-75 in reality IIRC. This is why the Vietnamese, Chinese and DPRKs constitently used the S-75 even if the chance was minimal.

I've heard the near miss story as well, but our people deny it. There's no evidence of it so it was probably wishful thinking (no shame or blame there, everybody gets a little hopeful sometimes.

Here's more from VIF: on S-75 use in Vietnam against SR-71 scout planes) There were little problems with tracking and guiding the target, but the main reason of failure was the uncounted stress on the final flight stage which destroyed all the missiles.

As I said, tracking is the easy bit, hitting is something quite else.

[Stuart]

SR-71 Gloading:

You know one of the depressing things about getting old is seeing on the Internet all the things I had to promise that, if I dreamed about them, I would smother myself with a pillow on waking.

Anyway...

Max G-load 1.5 at supersonic cruise. Less than half that of a Production B-70.

[K. A. Pital]

Silos require a lot more maintenance than that; otherwise their operational readiness drops alarmingly. If your people do only three-year maintance, then your operability is down to well below 50 percent.

This hardly impacts your perception of said silos, does it, even if that's true.

If its going to be a convincing dummy, yes. If it isn;t an almost-exact replica of a real silo, we know it

It can be an "almost exact replica", except you don't have to do all the silo hardening and put any hardwire innards into it, which is what makes the most of a silo's cost.

The real reason why the Russian defense system used ICBMs so extensively is that the Long Range Rocket Force came out of the Russian Army in general and the Russian artillery in particular.

The USSR was looking for solutions for nuclear parity. If bombers or submarines were a shorter road to that, they would've taken them regardless. Plans for supersonic bombers and various other stuff existed in the 60s but the missiles got priority.

B-70's engineering wasn't that way out; there were no real surprises other than a plethora of fuel leaks

Ah, indeed. I just forgot about the SR-71's reported bad leaks. But pardon me, the SR-71 force had an enourmous amount of time wasted for each flight and an enormous amount of system checks afterflight. I heard that one flight of the thing with all the accompanying actions costed 8 million USD, and it took _a lot_ more than several minutes to prepare the thing for flight, while hundreds of afterflight checks took hours. Wouldn't a perspective high speed bomber a victim to the same problems - lots of maintenance and a low KON?

They've shot down enough in the past. We worked on teh presumption if they could, they would. KAL-007 ring a bell?

KAL-007's accidental violation? Well, if someone broke into Soviet airspace for more than several seconds and so badly, of course we would've used the full PVO arsenal on it, including 25/31s and S-200/300s. The SR-71s speed gave it the ability to "tickle" off radars and cut across "bags" in Soviet airspace in the course of several seconds.

I can confirm some of that. It's thousands of S-75s and they never even got close.

They still used it as they had nothing else and they also were able to score hits on A-12 with that.

I've heard the near miss story as well, but our people deny it.

Well, dunno. I leave it to your judgement here, most of the people say that A-12 was grounded after that but it suffered no damage to it's functions, just "cosmetic" harm to the tail.

As I said, tracking is the easy bit, hitting is something quite else.

S-200 MkII and S-300 operators, as well as MiG-31/25 pilots say that there wasn't much challenge in frontal intercept of the SR-71, most of the problems also came from the missiles' ability to strike the craft at such speed from the vectors present. The problem was that you couldn't go apeshit on the SR-71 without the said craft being informed. Slava, a MiG-31 pilot on VIF, said that any plane can evade a missile on such high speeds if it's warned in advance, and the SR-71 was almost always warned and running. There were successful intercept reports but we were merely scaring the thing off. Going for the kill would require much more than just skimming our borders on Mach 3.2.

The problem with high speed planes is that they can pre-evade almost anything if they're warned. Just like no one could score hits on the MiG-25 in Israel with their SAMs. You don't even need the M3 to be "sort of invincible", just stay in the "speedy skimmer" role.

Many of those planes which were downed by the USSR/WP/socialist SEA bloc only went down because they directly breached the airspace of a country, in our case USSR. Just like the SR-71, IIRC, did not allow passages/manuever over West Germany since getting into the range of the GSVG was a totally different experience than flying over some losers like PRC, DPRK or SRV.

[Stuart]

It can be an "almost exact replica", except you don't have to do all the silo hardening and put any hardwire innards into it, which is what makes the most of a silo's cost.

If it isn't built the same way, we know about it. That's the problem with decoys, to be effective these days, they have to be so nearly identical to the target they are protecting that one moght as well build the system in full. That brings us back to TBO vs the Draka again and the horrible problems the Drakans face due to their ridiculous computer technology. Even simple, 1960s style decoys will fox their systems while ours can sieve out theirs between games of Donkey Kong.

The USSR was looking for solutions for nuclear parity. If bombers or submarines were a shorter road to that, they would've taken them regardless. Plans for supersonic bombers and various other stuff existed in the 60s but the missiles got priority.

Oh, I agree. I was talking culturally though, why in your country strategic stuff comes out of the Army while in ours its Navy/Air Force.

Ah, indeed. I just forgot about the SR-71's reported bad leaks. But pardon me, the SR-71 force had an enourmous amount of time wasted for each flight and an enormous amount of system checks afterflight. I heard that one flight of the thing with all the accompanying actions costed 8 million USD, and it took _a lot_ more than several minutes to prepare the thing for flight, while hundreds of afterflight checks took hours. Wouldn't a perspective high speed bomber a victim to the same problems - lots of maintenance and a low KON?

Most of the SR-71s problems were because there were so few of them, that made them very expensive to operate. We cracked the fuel leak problem with the XB-70 AV-2. The aircraft would have cost about the same to operate as a B-52 (there's an oddity there, because of the way the engines were designed, the B-70 was more economical with fuel flying at Mach 3+ than it was flying subsonically. In fact, the B-70s cruising speed was its maximum speed. If the SR-71 had been in widepread production, we would have seen most of those peculiar problems go away over time. Instead, we had what amounted to a fleet of hand-built prototypes.

KAL-007's accidental violation? Well, if someone broke into Soviet airspace for more than several seconds and so badly, of course we would've used the full PVO arsenal on it, including 25/31s and S-200/300s. The SR-71s speed gave it the ability to "tickle" off radars and cut across "bags" in Soviet airspace in the course of several seconds.

Nevertheless, the aircraft was shot down. There was also a case of an RB-47 that was shot down 80 miles from the nearest piece of land, Sorry, but the Soviet record of shooting down reconaissance aircraft is pretty well-established and a lot of them were a long way from Soviet airspace,

Well, dunno. I leave it to your judgement here, most of the people say that A-12 was grounded after that but it suffered no damage to it's functions, just "cosmetic" harm to the tail.

You don't do just cosmetic damage to an aircraft at Mach 3 plus. Sorry, but that tends to confirm that the aircraft wasn't hit.

S-200 MkII and S-300 operators, as well as MiG-31/25 pilots say that there wasn't much challenge in frontal intercept of the SR-71.

Well, they never did it. They never even did a dummy run or a harrassment attack. Sorry, but the evidence is that the SR-71s were never seriously threatened.

The problem was that you couldn't go apeshit on the SR-71 without the said craft being informed. Slava, a MiG-31 pilot on VIF, said that any plane can evade a missile on such high speeds if it's warned in advance, and the SR-71 was almost always warned and running.,.. (snip) The problem with high speed planes is that they can pre-evade almost anything if they're warned. Just like no one could score hits on the MiG-25 in Israel with their SAMs. You don't even need the M3 to be "sort of invincible", just stay in the "speedy skimmer" role.

This confirms exactly what I've been saying all along. Nice to have it from a MiG-31 pilot; that good confirmation to have. And if its that hard with an SR-71, its worse against a Valkyrie. Faster, higher, more agile better ECM and the B-70 can shoot back.

Many of those planes which were downed by the USSR/WP/socialist SEA bloc only went down because they directly breached the airspace of a country, in our case USSR.

True, but equally many weren't. Doesn't really matter though, that sort of thing is for the lawyers to sort out. The point is that the high-flying triple sonics got in and out scot-free

Just like the SR-71, IIRC, did not allow passages/manuever over West Germany since getting into the range of the GSVG was a totally different experience than flying over some losers like PRC, DPRK or SRV.

The SR-71s didn't come in over West Germany, far too many radars down there. Overloaded the ESM system. Other route packs, well, that;s a different story.

The point is that the triple-sonic bombers flying at high altitude maintain a very high degree of iinvulnerability to interception. It takes top-grade aircraft, a lot of them and working within a first-grade air defense system to stand a chance and then, as your MiG-31 pilot confirms, the chances of scoring a kill are very poor. In contrast, one a missile defense system is established, shooting down IBMs (it doesn't matter whether they are MRVed, MIRVed or MARVed) is pretty easy, we've had that technology for years.

That takes us back to the TBO vs Draka issue. The Drakan's ludicrous computer designs (and their lack of an amateur computer hobby industry) means they have no modern electronic warfare and no modern C4I systems. Therefore, they're deaf, dumb and blind. The TBOvese's SAC bombers are loaded to the gills with EW kit and there's nothing the Drakans can do about it so the bombers have perfect situational awareness. Put together that means the Drakan's can't survive the onslaught. Oh, I suppose some of those plantations might survive for a while until theiur supply of heavy-industry goods runs out (a week, perhaps a month, no more than that, then the whole crazy structure falls apart.).

On the other hand, the Drakans have no real means of penetrating the US defense screens. The Drakan radars and EW are down so they're flying into the defenses blind; unlike the SAC bombers, they have no idea about whether they are being tracked or targeted or what's coming at them. They'll die and they never knew what killed them.

As for space assets. It really depends what's up there. The simplest way of getting rid of them would be to initiate a full-scale nuclear warhead or six in HEO and then rely on Van Allen Pumping to erase everything in orbit (That's why the TBOverse lifeboats are at the Lagrange stations). Mars we've already dealt with.

[K. A. Pital]

The point is that the triple-sonic bombers flying at high altitude maintain a very high degree of iinvulnerability to interception. It takes top-grade aircraft, a lot of them and working within a first-grade air defense system

True, high speed planes require other high speed planes or top-SAM systems to be intercepted. However, as long as the required machinery is cheaper than the attacking force, and it was, not only in absolute terms but per flight as I see it... you can just spawn MiG-31s and have them run for it.

And again, you miss the whole point of the SR-71 leaving Soviet airspace and pre-evading possible attacks. A plane that is bound for an attack mission would not be treated with white gloves, and it would have to actually come _INTO_ the deep Soviet PVO zone to fulfill it's mission - therefore, it can and will be killed.

If you don't stay in the "scout skimmer" role and try to take on a bomber/fighter role, you'll get k'ed because a fighter or bomber have tasks that do not include "run after 30 seconds in the PVO zone", but "go through the PVO zone and attack target X".

The "invincibility" of the SR-71 and other scout planes, including hte Mig-25 in scout role, comes precisely from the functions of that scout role. It's like the invincible cowboy Joe from the Russian anecdote, which no one chases because no one needs him.

Remember that we _never_ actually saw a shift to supersonic strike forces a-la TBO. To think that SAM systems or "manned missiles" of the Mig family would have been developed in the similar lenient fashion and the missiles to counteract such targets would've been produced in few numbers _as in reality_ is a misconception.

Had the US gone to build the B-70 in reality, the USSR would've responded with tougher missile and hordes of interceptors which would've been cheaper than a single B-70 bomber.

[Stuart]

You're assuming that the "tensions period" (escalation of relations) exists. This is the same idea that led the USSR to the disaster in Barbarossa. Today if someone decides to attack with nukes, it would most likely be a sneak attack with full power.

Sorry, I missed this bit earlier. Even in a sneak attack, we'd have enough warning to get the bombers off the ground (allowing for the time taken to make the decisions. Think at leats ten minutes, that'll clear the airfield of a bomb group although the last ones off might get a little singed.

You mean America. We, however, are done in such a case. If Tu-160s and Tu-95s aren't wiped out sleeping, they're dead meat if they rise anyway - the US has too good a coverage over Russia.

Agreed.

I think most of the precision ICBMs developed a midflight maneuver ability, no?

No. Missiles come in on a fixed ballistic path, once launched we know where they're going and where they'll be at any given instant on the ballistic arc between launch point and target. Some years ago Martin-Marietta did a study on a manoeuvering ICBM and the wretched thing would have been the size of a Saturn IB. Even then, its agility was very limited.

One type of re-entry vehicle does manoever, the MARV. This isn't evasive though, it corrects its aim as it comes down to give very precise accuracy. The cost in fuel is horrendous. Basically, ballistic missiles are just that, ballistic, they can neither manoeuver nor evade.

[K. A. Pital]

Well, they never did it.

That's false if my sources on MiG-31 are true:
27 May 1987, MiG-31, guard-captain Moiseev and guard-captain Krasnov (72 GIAP) conducted a successful intercept run against an SR-71 plane and forced it far out into neutral waters.

[K. A. Pital]

Also, as a MiG-31 ground guide (RTO, Boris) tells, in case of dire need, you could always send MiG-31s on a collision course with the target with a high success chance (he recalls a case where a fellow MiG-31 almost collided with an SR-71 scout on frontal intercept).

[Stuart]

True, high speed planes require other high speed planes or top-SAM systems to be intercepted. However, as long as the required machinery is cheaper than the attacking force, and it was, not only in absolute terms but per flight as I see it... you can just spawn MiG-31s and have them run for it.

The point is, it wouldn't be cheaper to build the defense than the offense. The actual cost balance varies but the ratio of defense cost to offense cost is strongly in favor of the offense because teh offense chooses time and place. You have to defend everywhere, we can pick one place and blast a hole through.

And again, you miss the whole point of the SR-71 leaving Soviet airspace and pre-evading possible attacks. A plane that is bound for an attack mission would not be treated with white gloves, and it would have to actually come _INTO_ the deep Soviet PVO zone to fulfill it's mission - therefore, it can and will be killed.

Firstly, I don't accept the kid gloves argument. I believe the historical evidence clearly shows that if you could have shot the SR-71s down, you would have done. Secondly, if we're penetrating, we wouldn't be playing games either. The bombers would have come in behind a wall of air-to surface missiles, all nuclear-tipped and anti-radar missiles, also nuclear tipped. Probably air-to air missiles as well, guess what, Nuclear tipped. The bombers would just blast their way through. In the TBOverse, this is reinforced tby the groups of Strategic Recon aircraft that are actually startegic level wild weasels. They are specifically built to take the defenses on and blast holes in them for the bombers following them.

Had the US gone to build the B-70 in reality, the USSR would've responded with tougher missile and hordes of interceptors which would've been cheaper than a single B-70 bomber.

Your cost balance is wrong and in any case, we're a lot richer than you. We can spend you to death, we did it once, we can do it again. A MiG-31 may well be cheaper than a B-70 but the system in which they take part is not cheaper. I keep saying this, you must think systems. not weapons. An Air defense system is a lot more expensive than the bombers needed to penetrate it. By building bombers we're forcing you to build that more expensive defense system and the cost will break you (and mean that you can't spend those resources on offensive systems). A missile defense system costs a lot less than the missiles needed to penetrate it (because missiles can only use limited track windows and missiles are defenseless),

So, by combinging bombers for offense with an anti-missile system for defense, we've got the least expensive of all options. By opting for a missile-based offense and an air defense system, you;ve got the most expensive of all the options We're richer than you; you go broke.

That's why TBO is such a lethal military structure. It sounds incredible but the TBO force structure is actually less expensive to create and maintain than the one we have in our timeline - because it selects the least expensive options for attack and defense. And, because its optimized for strategic warfare. The TBOverse US has very limited tactical forces, much smaller than in our timeline. Yet, its those forces in our timeline that drain the defense budget. In our timeline, the US force structure is an uneasy compromise between strategic and tactical forces and pays a grave cost as a result. Teh TBO forces are strategic-optimized. The abiding motto is that if an enemy is dangerous enough to warrant going to war, that enemy is dangerous enough to warrant destroying completely. If it isn't that dangerous, its not worth bothering with.

As I said earlier, TBO isn't intended as a blueprint of a perfect system, its an investigation into the consequences of certain decisions. However, the Draka are an example of the sort of enemy the TBOverse forces ar optimized to destroying in very short order.

[Stuart]

That's false if my sources on MiG-31 are true:
27 May 1987, MiG-31, guard-captain Moiseev and guard-captain Krasnov (72 GIAP) conducted a successful intercept run against an SR-71 plane and forced it far out into neutral waters.

And my people say that no such incident ever happened. With your permission, can we agree to differ on that. My people say one thing, yours another and we'll probably never sort it out.

Also, as a MiG-31 ground guide (RTO, Boris) tells, in case of dire need, you could always send MiG-31s on a collision course with the target with a high success chance (he recalls a case where a fellow MiG-31 almost collided with an SR-71 scout on frontal intercept).

Again, there is no record of any such incident and, to be honest, it sounds very, very improbable. Again, there is a weakness in this - the course being tracked by your ground station probably wasn't accurate. Deception jamming is pretty good and the SR-71 had nice kit for doing it., It;s probable the SR-71 was quite a few kilometers away from where your station thought it was.

For the record, we have no evidence of a MiG-31 ever getting close to an SR-71. If such records exist, they're way outside my box. I don't think they exist, if they did, I'd have heard something about them.

Lock-ons and tracking yes. Airframe confrontations, no.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I'm fairly sure if a MiG-31 collided with an SR-71 the American military would have had a minor freak-out that would be hard to cover up.

[Stuart]

I'm fairly sure if a MiG-31 collided with an SR-71 the American military would have had a minor freak-out that would be hard to cover up.

Agreed, even a near-miss would cause major freakiness that would have been very obvious and been very well known. I think a lot of this stuff, either "we nearly got it" or "we could have got it but we're too nice" is compensation for the fact that they never even got close. The ability of the SR-71 to do things without interference was a major embarrassment to the PVO. These stories are really their form of denial.

I remember once being told a story by an old Canberra recon pilot about how he'd been flying over Moscow on a photographic mission in the 1952 and in one of his shots, there was a U-2 several thousand feet below him. That was impossible on so many levels I lost count. I didn't say anything, just let it slide.

[The Yosemite Bear]

you know I think we should export a link to this discussion over to Marina's web site.