NATO big SSMs

[uk 75]

When the UK gave up carriers in the 60s the alternative was supposed to be a family of helicopter, ship and sub launched missiles. In the event while Wasp helicopters did get AS12s it took nearly a decade before Exocet equipped some destroyers and frigates. Sea Skua for Lynx did not arrive until 1982.
Martel was supposed to provide a Seaking and SSN launched Anti ship missile. India did eventually get Sea Eagle for its helos. Harpoon for US and NATO service arrived in the 80s.
These missiles did not pack the punch of the large Soviet anti-carrier missiles despite a growing number of cruisers and ASW carriers in the Soviet Navy.
Talos on US cruisers and Seaslug on County class destroyers did provide some large missiles but the Tomahawk cruise missile on US battleships, cruisers and SSNs (later on Spruance destroyers too) provided a long range solution though not with a large warhead.
A cannister launched large cruise missile similar to Regulus II might have been deployed earlier if the Sverdlov cruisers had been built in larger numbers and been given Albany style conversions.

 

[Dilandu]

Technically, there were no problems of NATO countries creating their own anti-ship missiles in 1950s-1960s. They simply did not feel it was necessary, due to much more pressing concerns of anit-submarine and anti-air warfare. USN experimented a lot with anti-ship missiles and torpedo-carrying missiles under "Kingfisher" project, but generally concluded that there are of low priority, due to Soviet surface navy being less a threat than submarines.

If actually pressed to develope anti-ship missiles, I suppose, they would most likely follow Sweden pattern and develope a surface-to-surface anti-ship missiles on the basic of the target drones. The Rb.08 was essentially a derivative of French-produced CT.20 target drone, equipped with active radar seeker, and warhead at the expense of much reduced fuel supply.

My IMHO is that USN would most likely create an anti-ship missile out of Ryan Firebee drone. There were actually several projects to do exactly that; Firebee was pretty reliable, commonplace, capable of both ship & air launch, and have sufficient range and speed to be taken seriously. If the program was initiated in late 1950s, I suppose the Firebee-derived anti-ship missile would be equipped with radar seeker. If later - then, I suppose, they would combine it with "Walleye" program, and would equipm missile with optical contrast seeker and radio datalink to the ship.

 

[Dilandu]

P.S. In one of my alternate history projects, when USSR started to create a carrier fleet post-war, USN started to develope its own anti-ship missiles to counter them. Two projects were implemented:

* RGM-34 Firebird missile - the derivative of Ryan Firebee BQM-34A target drone, equipped with active radar seeker and 500-pdr HE warhead. It was developed as ship-launched weapon, mainly to arm destroyers and frigates, and basically serve as counter to Soviet P-15 Termit missile.

* AGM-41 Wyvern missile - the Talos-based air-launched supersonic ramjet missile, designed to be launched from A-3 Skywarrior aircraft with about 100 miles range. Essentially, it's a version of Talos with smaller booster (since air-launched) and reduced maneuverability in exchange for larger nuclear warhead. The guidance system was based on Talos one, but redesigned to work with a single aircraft targeting radar; the missile ride the beam till close proximity to target, after which it switch to semi-active homing (since it's an anti-ship missile, using a single radar is not a concern).

 

[Bruno Anthony]

USN carrier air in that timeframe would have keel hauled anyone pushing for long range AShMs. Bombs away!

 

[Dilandu]

USN carrier air in that timeframe would have keel hauled anyone pushing for long range AShMs. Bombs away!

That's why I specified that it's about AU, where USSR have significant carrier fleet, and USN carriers are forced to concentrate more on air defense & achieving air superiority, than on strike operations.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

That's why I specified that it's about AU, where USSR have significant carrier fleet, and USN carriers are forced to concentrate more on air defense & achieving air superiority, than on strike operations.

USN carrier aviation was concerned that multi platform long range AShMs would threaten carrier funding.

 

[yeetmahboi]

USN carrier aviation was concerned that multi platform long range AShMs would threaten carrier funding.

By the 50s cross-platform was far more limited than today is. At most, if something like Corvus or a ramjet ever enters service, I could see it getting on Skywarriors, Vigs and F-4. It'd be strange for a, at that time entirely NAVAIR niche to put carrier funding at risk, I could see quite the opposite.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

By the 50s cross-platform was far more limited than today is. At most, if something like Corvus or a ramjet ever enters service, I could see it getting on Skywarriors, Vigs and F-4. It'd be strange for a, at that time entirely NAVAIR niche to put carrier funding at risk, I could see quite the opposite.

Or not. Corvus had a nuclear warhead so somewhat limited in potential use. Long range AShMs that could go on surface ships wasn’t exactly something the aviation community was thrilled about.

The Navy as a whole had all of its ASUW capabilities in the carriers and mostly free fall bombs.

https://cimsec.org/the-politics-of-naval-innovation-cruise-missiles-and-the-tomahawk/

 

[Rule of cool]

I wonder to what extent might sophisticated have increased the effectiveness of the West's small, Cold War generation AShMs?

The Martel had a 330lb warhead with a Misnay–Schardin plate to direct the force of the explosion. The Otomat has a SAP warhead with a main charge and 16 radial charges that go off one the warhead has penetrated the ship. I can't imagine these are the only AShM missiles with sophisticated warheads, especially given the size limitations placed on AShMs.

 

[Dilandu]

wonder to what extent might sophisticated have increased the effectiveness of the West's small, Cold War generation AShMs?

Well, Western anti-ship missiles in general weren't sophisticated. Only Otomat really have man-in-the-loop & converging attack capability - something that Soviet missiles have since P-35 in early 1960s. And no one Western missile came even close to autonomous capabilities of P-500 Bazalt or P-700 Granit.

Basically, Western anti-ship missiles were designed under "cheap, small, moderatedly efficient" paradigm. At least partially it was caused by the fact that Soviet surface navy was considered much less of a threat than submarine one, and funding for anti-ship missiles was of relatively low priority. Situation changed somewhat only after Vietnam, when the true danger of SAM's were realized (and Soviet fleet grew to the size, when it dwarfed anyone but American).

 

[Dilandu]

The Otomat has a SAP warhead with a main charge and 16 radial charges that go off one the warhead has penetrated the ship. I can't imagine these are the only AShM missiles with sophisticated warheads, especially given the size limitations placed on AShMs.

Otomat was an exception - it was big, heavy long-range missile, designed to use midcourse control and man-in-the-loop ability to penetrate air defenses through complex pattern of attacks. Not a standard for Western missiles.

 

[Rule of cool]

Well, Western anti-ship missiles in general weren't sophisticated. Only Otomat really have man-in-the-loop & converging attack capability - something that Soviet missiles have since P-35 in early 1960s. And no one Western missile came even close to autonomous capabilities of P-500 Bazalt or P-700 Granit.

Basically, Western anti-ship missiles were designed under "cheap, small, moderatedly efficient" paradigm. At least partially it was caused by the fact that Soviet surface navy was considered much less of a threat than submarine one, and funding for anti-ship missiles was of relatively low priority. Situation changed somewhat only after Vietnam, when the true danger of SAM's were realized (and Soviet fleet grew to the size, when it dwarfed anyone but American).

Sorry, I meant sophisticated warheads, to make-up for their lack of size. Martels 330lb isn't very big, even the Harpoon's 490lb isn't much. However, like AAM warheads with their expanding rods, I'm sure AShM warheads could be hotted up to increase their effectiveness.

 

[Rule of cool]

Otomat was an exception - it was big, heavy long-range missile, designed to use midcourse control and man-in-the-loop ability to penetrate air defenses through complex pattern of attacks. Not a standard for Western missiles.

I think the Otomat is a good missile a seagoing power without carriers. The longer range, fancy warhead and the man in loop guidance can give surface warships a sophisticated strike capability lost when the carriers retired.

 

[Dilandu]

Sorry, I meant sophisticated warheads, to make-up for their lack of size. Martels 330lb isn't very big, even the Harpoon's 490lb isn't much. However, like AAM warheads with their expanding rods, I'm sure AShM warheads could be hotted up to increase their effectiveness.

Well, true, the Western warheads were actually quite sophisticated:

* The French Exocet and German Otomat used a HE/multiple shaped charge warheads. The warhead castig was covered with shallow cavities, that, at the moment of explosion, created many explosively formed projectiles, shooting radially from warhead. Those projectiles essentially acted as very heavy, very fast fragments, penetrating bulkheads and significantly increasing area of destruction.

* The Italian Otomat have triple effect warhead. The main charge was HE/shaped charge with large shaping cavity pointed downward at circa 45 degrees angle. The secondary charge consisted of multiple incendiary submunitions. The idea was, that main charge, detonating, would blow a hole in the ship downward (hopefully hitting machines, magazines, CIC or something else vital), while secondary submunitions would spread around, creating multiple fires.

* The American Harpoon was...straightforward. Merely a HE/fragmentation warhead in heavy casting, that allowed it to penetrate into the enemy hull before detonation. Nothing sophisticated, just a heavy bomb with hard shell to punch through & explode deep inside the hull. As far as I know, the British Sea Eagle followed the same idea.

* For compairson, the majority of Soviet anti-ship missiles were armed with high-explosive/shaped charge warhead with a single shaping cavity in front, pointing downward. It was mainly because many of Soviet ASM's were designed in late 1950s - and there were still a lot of battleships and heavy cruisers in Western Navies - and were designed to be highly efficient in killing armored warships. Later the same idea switched to killing supercarriers, by punching through their multiple decks to reach the machinery or magazines below.

 

[Yellow Palace]

The Navy as a whole had all of its ASUW capabilities in the carriers and mostly free fall bombs.

I'm not convinced that even carriers were seen as much of an ASuW capability: the USN seems to have viewed their role as land attack since late in WW2. Torpedo-armed submarines seem to have been the primary anti-ship weapon system.

Basically, Western anti-ship missiles were designed under "cheap, small, moderatedly efficient" paradigm.

Worth bearing in mind that Harpoon wasn't even an anti-ship missile at first - it was intended to be used against surfaced submarines. One can get away with quite an unsophisticated weapon for that role.

 

[Dilandu]

Worth bearing in mind that Harpoon wasn't even an anti-ship missile at first - it was intended to be used against surfaced submarines. One can get away with quite an unsophisticated weapon for that role.

Well, it was declared intention, sure... but I strongly suspect that it was nothing more than justification, so the initial fundings could be provided under "anti-submarine weapon" cover. Basically, my suspicion is that Harpoon was actually designed as anti-ship missile from the very beginning, and the "use against surfaced submarines" role (a VERY limited niche, frankly, especially by 1960s) was invented to get funding.

 

[Scott Kenny]

When the UK gave up carriers in the 60s the alternative was supposed to be a family of helicopter, ship and sub launched missiles. In the event while Wasp helicopters did get AS12s it took nearly a decade before Exocet equipped some destroyers and frigates. Sea Skua for Lynx did not arrive until 1982.
Martel was supposed to provide a Seaking and SSN launched Anti ship missile. India did eventually get Sea Eagle for its helos. Harpoon for US and NATO service arrived in the 80s.
These missiles did not pack the punch of the large Soviet anti-carrier missiles despite a growing number of cruisers and ASW carriers in the Soviet Navy.
Talos on US cruisers and Seaslug on County class destroyers did provide some large missiles but the Tomahawk cruise missile on US battleships, cruisers and SSNs (later on Spruance destroyers too) provided a long range solution though not with a large warhead.
A cannister launched large cruise missile similar to Regulus II might have been deployed earlier if the Sverdlov cruisers had been built in larger numbers and been given Albany style conversions.

Tomahawk has a 1000lb warhead, though. That's up there into "Bigass Soviet Missile(tm)" territory, especially if you use explosives with a high TNT equivalence. PETN, RDX, or HMX, for older examples (RE = ~1.6-1.7). CL-20 if you really need to blow the back of the ship out (RE = 1.90).

Sorry, I meant sophisticated warheads, to make-up for their lack of size. Martels 330lb isn't very big, even the Harpoon's 490lb isn't much. However, like AAM warheads with their expanding rods, I'm sure AShM warheads could be hotted up to increase their effectiveness.

Don't forget that you could get exotic with the airframe materials as well. Talos used a magnesium airframe, which turned into burning fragments all over the target when one hit a ship. A thousand pounds of burning magnesium will definitely ruin a ship's day!



I'm honestly kinda surprised that tandem-charge warheads haven't become a bigger thing for AShMs. EFP or shaped charge to open a hole, then a SAP secondary to punch into the guts. A modified BROACH warhead, in other words. Though a bigger warhead overall, since BROACH is only 500lbs total. I'm thinking 1000lbs total warhead weight, and have the following charge made like the Exocet warhead. But make the EFP liners out of magnesium or some other pyrophoric metal for maximum damage.

 

[Big_Zukini]

I'm honestly kinda surprised that tandem-charge warheads haven't become a bigger thing for AShMs. EFP or shaped charge to open a hole, then a SAP secondary to punch into the guts. A modified BROACH warhead, in other words. Though a bigger warhead overall, since BROACH is only 500lbs total. I'm thinking 1000lbs total warhead weight, and have the following charge made like the Exocet warhead. But make the EFP liners out of magnesium or some other pyrophoric metal for maximum damage.

Aren't modern ships sufficiently soft for a conventional point detonation delay design? I don't see why anyone would need to invest in such penetration.

 

[Dilandu]

Tomahawk has a 1000lb warhead, though. That's up there into "Bigass Soviet Missile(tm)" territory, especially if you use explosives with a high TNT equivalence. PETN, RDX, or HMX, for older examples (RE = ~1.6-1.7). CL-20 if you really need to blow the back of the ship out (RE = 1.90).

Well... actually it would be "Medium Soviet Missile" territory. Our heavy stuff usually have warheads about 1500-2000 lb, HE/shaped charge ones.

But I agree, the TASM was an elegant idea. Its main problem was, that it was... well, it was dumb. It could not perform any complex attack pattern, it have no datalink capability, not even friend-or-foe indentifier, and its only way of penetrating air defense was to fly really low. It can't perform any terminal evasion maneuvers, and did not have any self-defense measures (even simple chaffs weren't installed). Basically, it was "Harpoon on steroids".

 

[Dilandu]

Aren't modern ships sufficiently soft for a conventional point detonation delay design? I don't see why anyone would need to invest in such penetration.

Well, supercarries aren't soft. They are big enough (and their hulls sturdy enough) to absorb a hit from subsonic penetration warhead. Of course, a supersonic couls just penetrate by sheer kinetic energy.

 

[timmymagic]

Sorry, I meant sophisticated warheads, to make-up for their lack of size. Martels 330lb isn't very big, even the Harpoon's 490lb isn't much. However, like AAM warheads with their expanding rods, I'm sure AShM warheads could be hotted up to increase their effectiveness.

Sea Skua also had a directed warhead to punch down to the keel. I suspect the big Swedish missiles had similar. NSM does.

But...truth was there just wasn't a need for Western AShM until the late 70's. The Soviet surface fleet was not really going to come out and play with the USN CBG's....AND the Iowa's....plus all the SSN's and other Western Navies. When it looked like they were with the Kirov's we saw the development of the likes of Sea Eagle (which was actually quite sophisticated).

Prior to that the only really perceived surface threat was the Sverdlov's....and there was no need for an AShM there....they were getting a bucket of instant sunshine toss-bombed at them....

 

[Scott Kenny]

Aren't modern ships sufficiently soft for a conventional point detonation delay design? I don't see why anyone would need to invest in such penetration.

Smaller ships, yes. Anything under 10ktons.

Carriers, however, are large enough that I think you'd need to get creative. Or set a nuke to detonate after penetration...

Remember, the US deliberately shot the hell out of USS America and even after at least two Mk48s under the keel she had to be boarded and scuttled.

 

[Big_Zukini]

Well, supercarries aren't soft. They are big enough (and their hulls sturdy enough) to absorb a hit from subsonic penetration warhead. Of course, a supersonic couls just penetrate by sheer kinetic energy.

Wait, so that is why Soviet doctrine prioritized supersonic AShMs over subsonics?

 

[Dilandu]

Wait, so that is why Soviet doctrine prioritized supersonic AShMs over subsonics?

Not exactly. Initially, push for supersonic speed was viewed as efficient method to penetrate air defenses. Most long-range and medium-range SAM's of 1960s were relatively slow-firing, and most dedk fighters could not reliably engage something as small as cruise missile in anything but tail-chase. So salvo of supersonic missiles could evade the fighters (they simply would not have time to swing around, accelerate, chase the missile and shoot it down) and break through SAM defense perimeter before SAM's would be able to shoot them all down.

Speaking generally, supersonic speed left defenders with much less time to act, allowed far less defense measures to be undertaken and complicated defense targeting - since any mistake led to greater miss. The great penetrating capability was only an icing on cake.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Smaller ships, yes. Anything under 10ktons.

Carriers, however, are large enough that I think you'd need to get creative. Or set a nuke to detonate after penetration...

Remember, the US deliberately shot the hell out of USS America and even after at least two Mk48s under the keel she had to be boarded and scuttled.

That’s to sink it. A couple of holes in the flight deck or a severe enough fire on the flight deck and the carrier is no longer providing its services.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Sea Skua also had a directed warhead to punch down to the keel. I suspect the big Swedish missiles had similar. NSM does.

But...truth was there just wasn't a need for Western AShM until the late 70's. The Soviet surface fleet was not really going to come out and play with the USN CBG's....AND the Iowa's....plus all the SSN's and other Western Navies. When it looked like they were with the Kirov's we saw the development of the likes of Sea Eagle (which was actually quite sophisticated).

Prior to that the only really perceived surface threat was the Sverdlov's....and there was no need for an AShM there....they were getting a bucket of instant sunshine toss-bombed at them....

1. Soviet surface fleet came out to play in 1973.

2. You’re being very all over the place with the time frame.

3. Alexander Clarke disagrees with the Buccaneers vs Sverdlovs theory. And going nuclear immediately I’m sure wouldn’t be as easy a decision as you think.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Well... actually it would be "Medium Soviet Missile" territory. Our heavy stuff usually have warheads about 1500-2000 lb, HE/shaped charge ones.

But I agree, the TASM was an elegant idea. Its main problem was, that it was... well, it was dumb. It could not perform any complex attack pattern, it have no datalink capability, not even friend-or-foe indentifier, and its only way of penetrating air defense was to fly really low. It can't perform any terminal evasion maneuvers, and did not have any self-defense measures (even simple chaffs weren't installed). Basically, it was "Harpoon on steroids".

We’ll just ignore that the big Soviet AShMs were 3-4 times heavier than any Western ones. So able to pack in more Soviet “electronics”.

 

[Dilandu]

We’ll just ignore that the big Soviet AShMs were 3-4 times heavier than any Western ones. So able to pack in more Soviet “electronics”.

Yes, because it's not true. They were bigger because USSR wanted supersonic speed and heavy warhead. If you need Western analogue of Soviet anti-ship missiles, look at RIM-8 Talos in Vandal variant (i.e. target drone, simulating Soviet supersonics). This thing is HUGE. To fit enough fuel for prolonged low-altitude run, engineers were forced to stretch the missile body, installing additional fuel tanks. And this is without warhead.

Bottom line - Western missile with the capabilities of P-700 Granit would be as big as Granit. Because weight of electronic was pretty much insignificant in compairson with weight of fuel and warhead.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Yes, because it's not true. They were bigger because USSR wanted supersonic speed and heavy warhead. If you need Western analogue of Soviet anti-ship missiles, look at RIM-8 Talos in Vandal variant (i.e. target drone, simulating Soviet supersonics). This thing is HUGE. To fit enough fuel for prolonged low-altitude run, engineers were forced to stretch the missile body, installing additional fuel tanks. And this is without warhead.

Bottom line - Western missile with the capabilities of P-700 Granit would be as big as Granit. Because weight of electronic was pretty much insignificant in compairson with weight of fuel and warhead.

Most of the weight in Talos was the booster.

These specs still show a much smaller missile than Soviet ones.
If you have other specs on Vandal, please link. (Never gonna happen)

https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-8.html

 

[timmymagic]

We’ll just ignore that the big Soviet AShMs were 3-4 times heavier than any Western ones. So able to pack in more Soviet “electronics”.

And that those Soviet AShM's were massive...because the targets they were attacking were massive...

 

[Yellow Palace]

1. Soviet surface fleet came out to play in 1973.

Firmly in speculative territory - but if the blue-water surface fleet plans of 1944-1947 came to pass somehow, then NATO would have had to think about ASuW a lot earlier.

Tomahawk has a 1000lb warhead, though. That's up there into "Bigass Soviet Missile(tm)" territory, especially if you use explosives with a high TNT equivalence. PETN, RDX, or HMX, for older examples (RE = ~1.6-1.7). CL-20 if you really need to blow the back of the ship out (RE = 1.90).

I suspect that the USSR also thought of the cunning strategy of 'use better explosives', to be fair!

Though that gets into action-reaction fallacy. The response to your opponent having big warheads on their AShMs isn't to put bigger warheads on yours. It's having better ways of stopping them. You put big warheads on because you want to sink big ships.

Bottom line - Western missile with the capabilities of P-700 Granit would be as big as Granit. Because weight of electronic was pretty much insignificant in compairson with weight of fuel and warhead.

The supersonic anti-ship missile studied as part of the Perseus Advanced Cruise Missile program makes an interesting comparison to P-700. Comparable range, comparable speed, warhead less than half the size (316 kg vs. 750 kg), rather more than half the weight. It's pretty obvious from the numbers that the US didn't have any tricks that the USSR didn't.

 

[Ainen]

Tomahawk has a 1000lb warhead, though. That's up there into "Bigass Soviet Missile(tm)" territory, especially if you use explosives with a high TNT equivalence. PETN, RDX, or HMX, for older examples (RE = ~1.6-1.7). CL-20 if you really need to blow the back of the ship out (RE = 1.90).

Tomahawk is big and slow.
It always was a rather easy target over sea.

TASM always was an add hock solution to get something fast.

 

[Dilandu]

Most of the weight in Talos was the booster.

These specs still show a much smaller missile than Soviet ones.
If you have other specs on Vandal, please link. (Never gonna happen)

You realize that Talos did not have active radar homing system, and its warhead was five time smaller than of Soviet heavy missiles?

If you have other specs on Vandal, please link. (Never gonna happen)

Oh, as a matter of fact, I have:

The supersonic anti-ship missile studied as part of the Perseus Advanced Cruise Missile program makes an interesting comparison to P-700. Comparable range, comparable speed, warhead less than half the size (316 kg vs. 750 kg), rather more than half the weight. It's pretty obvious from the numbers that the US didn't have any tricks that the USSR didn't.

Exactly.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

You realize that Talos did not have active radar homing system, and its warhead was five time smaller than of Soviet heavy missiles?

Still 3400lbs without booster. The Soviet ones can’t say that can they?

Your link, which is rare from you, old news and not new news.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Firmly in speculative territory

Really?

https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2265&context=nwc-review

 

[Archibald]

P.S. In one of my alternate history projects, when USSR started to create a carrier fleet post-war, USN started to develope its own anti-ship missiles to counter them. Two projects were implemented:

* RGM-34 Firebird missile - the derivative of Ryan Firebee BQM-34A target drone, equipped with active radar seeker and 500-pdr HE warhead. It was developed as ship-launched weapon, mainly to arm destroyers and frigates, and basically serve as counter to Soviet P-15 Termit missile.

* AGM-41 Wyvern missile - the Talos-based air-launched supersonic ramjet missile, designed to be launched from A-3 Skywarrior aircraft with about 100 miles range. Essentially, it's a version of Talos with smaller booster (since air-launched) and reduced maneuverability in exchange for larger nuclear warhead. The guidance system was based on Talos one, but redesigned to work with a single aircraft targeting radar; the missile ride the beam till close proximity to target, after which it switch to semi-active homing (since it's an anti-ship missile, using a single radar is not a concern).

Good. How about salvaging all the dollars and work done on Vought Regulus I and II, turning them into monster antiship missiles ? they would pack some colossal punch. As a bonus, Regulus I submarines are already in service, while the II was coming soon when they canned it.

Going a step further: remember when B-52G got Harpoons in the 1980's ? how about getting a (broadly) similar capability in the 1960's with a Hound Dog ? once again, the missile is enormous - and blistering fast.

Going another step further: in the 1950's the US military developed a ton of guided cruise missiles : a whole exotic zoo of them. I have the list somewhere: Rascal, Matador, Mace, Snark, Navaho, Regulus I & II, Hound Dog... all of them ended squeezed between Minuteman and Polaris. Would be nice to "recycle" all those babies into the antiship role.

For example, Rascal was to give B-47s a cruise missile capability. And since the Soviet Tu-16s are playing that game... how about antiship Rascal B-47s.

As for the B-58, with its tall undercarriage it screams for a giganormous antiship missile on its belly pylon, in place of the bomb-fuel-pod.

Endless possibilities, if the SAC fleet accepts to have a Soviet Naval Aviation -like secondary role. Of course, considering the colossal hatred they had for the USN, Hell would freeze over before this happened.

 

[Sferrin]

The B-58 could have probably filled a Backfire-ish role with a pair of Skybolts suitably modified.

 

[Dilandu]

Good. How about salvaging all the dollars and work done on Vought Regulus I and II, turning them into monster antiship missiles ? they would pack some colossal punch. As a bonus, Regulus I submarines are already in service, while the II was coming soon when they canned it.

It's technically possible, but... impractical.

First of all, those missile are huge, ramp-launched and NOT suited for any kind of fast launch. They require pre-flight preparation. While Soviet cruise missiles since late 1950s were designed for "just shoot it out of container", the Regulus were much more maintenance-heavy (and likely could not be made better without a significant reconstruction), and could not be launched "on spot".

Second, they are just too big for fitting on most warships. Unless a specific class would be build to operate those missiles (like Soviet Project 58 destroyers) they would suffer from the lack of launch platforms. Only large cruisers - which USN did not have much of - would be able to operate them.

Third, it's not exactly clear what advantage using Regulus as a base would bring. The full range likely could not be exploited anyway, because of sensors & targeting limitations (in case of Regulus I, it would also be the problem of long flight time). The 1.4-1.5 ton warhead would be powerful, indeed, but... for what targets? Since the salvo fire of Regulus would likely be impossible, the probability of penetrating air defense would be rather low.

All things considered, BQM-34 Firebee seems as much better candidate.

 

[yeetmahboi]

The B-58 could have probably filled a Backfire-ish role with a pair of Skybolts suitably modified.

How bout proliferating Polaris with anti ship mode...

 

[Yellow Palace]

Really?

https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2265&context=nwc-review

I fear I've been misunderstood. The speculation is that if the Soviet surface fleet had been in a position to come out and play in 1953, NATO would have to face up to the threat 20 years earlier.

As for the B-58, with its tall undercarriage it screams for a giganormous antiship missile on its belly pylon, in place of the bomb-fuel-pod.

I've always thought the MA-1 rocket powered pod was screaming out to be made into a big anti-ship missile.