Chances of US bombers penetrating Soviet defenses in the 1960's - 85 percent

datafuser

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
1 December 2006
Messages
275
Reaction score
485
In a memorandum from Defense Secretary McNamara to President Johnson in December 1966, it was footnoted that "it was generally agreed within the United States Government, that approximately 85 percent of the U.S. incoming bombers could penetrate the Soviet defenses and reach their targets."

http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v10/d160#fnref11

160. Draft Memorandum From Secretary of Defense McNamara to President Johnson1

Washington, December 22, 1966.

SUBJECT
Production and Deployment of the Nike-X

(snip)

The Soviets for more than a decade have spent substantially more on air defense against strategic bombers than has the U.S. The bulk of the Soviet expenditure has been wasted - throughout the period the U.S. Strategic Air Command stated, and it was generally agreed within the United States Government, that approximately 85 percent of the U.S. incoming bombers could penetrate the Soviet defenses and reach their targets. [Footnote in the source text.]
 
The Assistant Chief of Staff, Intelligence, USAF believed in 1963 that chances of Soviet bombers reaching North American targets would be 300/750, which is 40%.

http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v08/d130#fnref6

130. National Intelligence Estimate1

Washington, March 22, 1963.

NIE 11-4-63

SOVIET MILITARY CAPABILITIES AND POLICIES, 1962-1967

(snip)

The Assistant Chief of Staff, Intelligence, USAF, does not consider that this paragraph accurately reflects the capability of the USSR to put aircraft over North America on two-way missions. He believes that with due consideration of all relevant factors, such as number of aircraft in Long Range Aviation, numbers of aircraft tanker configured and peak availability rate, the Soviets could commit about 750 aircraft to initial two-way attacks on North America. From this number committed, about 300 bombers could reach North American targets.
 
datafuser said:
The Assistant Chief of Staff, Intelligence, USAF believed in 1963 that chances of Soviet bombers reaching North American targets would be 300/750, which is 40%.

http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v08/d130#fnref6

130. National Intelligence Estimate1

Washington, March 22, 1963.

NIE 11-4-63

SOVIET MILITARY CAPABILITIES AND POLICIES, 1962-1967

(snip)

The Assistant Chief of Staff, Intelligence, USAF, does not consider that this paragraph accurately reflects the capability of the USSR to put aircraft over North America on two-way missions. He believes that with due consideration of all relevant factors, such as number of aircraft in Long Range Aviation, numbers of aircraft tanker configured and peak availability rate, the Soviets could commit about 750 aircraft to initial two-way attacks on North America. From this number committed, about 300 bombers could reach North American targets.

Even with all the Nike, Bomarc, and ADC sites? :-\
 
Jesus Christ !
I got some PDF of SIOP-62 plan (Single Integrated Operational Plan)
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB130/

here they talk belittle about "delivery to designated Target Site" of 3x80 kt minimum with "75 percent assurance factor"
on Moscow they planned to drop OVER 100 Mega Tons of Nuke with MRBM, ICBM, B-58, B-52, B-47 (and SLAM if available)
and as option SLBM if Soviet Union try to hit back

on the other side: the chance of Soviet Bomber penetrating NATO defenses in 1960's was really Zero ?
 
You have to appreciate the professional tone in which these odds are stated, but it lacks the panache of Hermann "You can call me Meyer" Goering.
 
Michel Van said:
Jesus Christ !
I got some PDF of SIOP-62 plan (Single Integrated Operational Plan)
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB130/

here they talk belittle about "delivery to designated Target Site" of 3x80 kt minimum with "75 percent assurance factor"
on Moscow they planned to drop OVER 100 Mega Tons of Nuke with MRBM, ICBM, B-58, B-52, B-47 (and SLAM if available)
and as option SLBM if Soviet Union try to hit back

on the other side: the chance of Soviet Bomber penetrating NATO defenses in 1960's was really Zero ?


Where was it said that the chance of Soviet Bomber penetrating NATO defenses in 1960's was really Zero?
 
datafuser said:
Where was it said that the chance of Soviet Bomber penetrating NATO defenses in 1960's was really Zero?

nothing special, only that:
they pave NATO with Nike-Hercules SAM sites (allot armed with Nukes)
the US Aircraft had active Radar-system on board and very good Air-Air Missile (some armed with Nukes)
(not like Soviet union Jets who needed a ground Radar station to be guided close to there Targets)
and wat for ECM system the Soviet bomber had in early 1960s ? only Chaff ??
 
sferrin said:
datafuser said:
The Assistant Chief of Staff, Intelligence, USAF believed in 1963 that chances of Soviet bombers reaching North American targets would be 300/750, which is 40%.

http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v08/d130#fnref6

130. National Intelligence Estimate1

Washington, March 22, 1963.

NIE 11-4-63

SOVIET MILITARY CAPABILITIES AND POLICIES, 1962-1967

(snip)

The Assistant Chief of Staff, Intelligence, USAF, does not consider that this paragraph accurately reflects the capability of the USSR to put aircraft over North America on two-way missions. He believes that with due consideration of all relevant factors, such as number of aircraft in Long Range Aviation, numbers of aircraft tanker configured and peak availability rate, the Soviets could commit about 750 aircraft to initial two-way attacks on North America. From this number committed, about 300 bombers could reach North American targets.

Even with all the Nike, , and ADC sites? :-\

With a bunch of missiles like those with nuclear warheads I'm also inclined to ask the same thing. You'd think we'd detect the bombers and blow them out of the sky before that many got through.
 
AAAdrone said:
sferrin said:
datafuser said:
The Assistant Chief of Staff, Intelligence, USAF believed in 1963 that chances of Soviet bombers reaching North American targets would be 300/750, which is 40%.

http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v08/d130#fnref6

130. National Intelligence Estimate1

Washington, March 22, 1963.

NIE 11-4-63

SOVIET MILITARY CAPABILITIES AND POLICIES, 1962-1967

(snip)

The Assistant Chief of Staff, Intelligence, USAF, does not consider that this paragraph accurately reflects the capability of the USSR to put aircraft over North America on two-way missions. He believes that with due consideration of all relevant factors, such as number of aircraft in Long Range Aviation, numbers of aircraft tanker configured and peak availability rate, the Soviets could commit about 750 aircraft to initial two-way attacks on North America. From this number committed, about 300 bombers could reach North American targets.

Even with all the Nike, , and ADC sites? :-\

With a bunch of missiles like those with nuclear warheads I'm also inclined to ask the same thing. You'd think we'd detect the bombers and blow them out of the sky before that many got through.

BOMARC was operational as well.
 
How many missiles were there on the defense? Given the inevitable radar problems, missile failures, simple misses, and decoys/countermeasures, I think it's very likely that there would have been a lot of leakers. The idea that there was an air-tight defense just seems improbable, even today, much less with the technological state of the art in the 1960s.
 
TomS said:
How many missiles were there on the defense? Given the inevitable radar problems, missile failures, simple misses, and decoys/countermeasures, I think it's very likely that there would have been a lot of leakers. The idea that there was an air-tight defense just seems improbable, even today, much less with the technological state of the art in the 1960s.

Technology was worse but then so was the tech of the Soviet bombers, not to mention there were a LOT of SAMS and defensive aircraft.
 
sferrin said:
AAAdrone said:
sferrin said:
datafuser said:
The Assistant Chief of Staff, Intelligence, USAF believed in 1963 that chances of Soviet bombers reaching North American targets would be 300/750, which is 40%.

http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v08/d130#fnref6

130. National Intelligence Estimate1

Washington, March 22, 1963.

NIE 11-4-63

SOVIET MILITARY CAPABILITIES AND POLICIES, 1962-1967

(snip)

The Assistant Chief of Staff, Intelligence, USAF, does not consider that this paragraph accurately reflects the capability of the USSR to put aircraft over North America on two-way missions. He believes that with due consideration of all relevant factors, such as number of aircraft in Long Range Aviation, numbers of aircraft tanker configured and peak availability rate, the Soviets could commit about 750 aircraft to initial two-way attacks on North America. From this number committed, about 300 bombers could reach North American targets.

Even with all the Nike, , and ADC sites? :-\

With a bunch of missiles like those with nuclear warheads I'm also inclined to ask the same thing. You'd think we'd detect the bombers and blow them out of the sky before that many got through.

BOMARC was operational as well.

For some reason your reference of BOMARC in the post I quoted earlier got deleted. I don't know how that happened. I have doubts about what kind of defenses a massed soviet bomber attack group would have against proximity fused nukes. There's ECM but I don't think those bombers had ECM in those days like Michael Van said. I think it may have been just Chaff. Sure there might have been radar and missile failures but even then a 40% chance of bombers getting through seems a bit large.

I wonder how the AIM-26 Falcon would have fared against the bombers? I'm sure several squadrons of interceptors armed with those ought to have been useful against a massed attack.
 
Nuclear Genies, AIM-26s, lots of nukes on the Nike Hercules, all the BOMARCs had nukes. . .
 
sferrin said:
TomS said:
How many missiles were there on the defense? Given the inevitable radar problems, missile failures, simple misses, and decoys/countermeasures, I think it's very likely that there would have been a lot of leakers. The idea that there was an air-tight defense just seems improbable, even today, much less with the technological state of the art in the 1960s.

Technology was worse but then so was the tech of the Soviet bombers, not to mention there were a LOT of SAMS and defensive aircraft.

I do remember reading somewhere that the US had problems with covering it's southern coast. Anyone got more info on this, might be pertinent.
 
starviking said:
sferrin said:
TomS said:
How many missiles were there on the defense? Given the inevitable radar problems, missile failures, simple misses, and decoys/countermeasures, I think it's very likely that there would have been a lot of leakers. The idea that there was an air-tight defense just seems improbable, even today, much less with the technological state of the art in the 1960s.

Technology was worse but then so was the tech of the Soviet bombers, not to mention there were a LOT of SAMS and defensive aircraft.

I do remember reading somewhere that the US had problems with covering it's southern coast. Anyone got more info on this, might be pertinent.

They didn't cover the Southern Coast (as much) because Soviet bombers weren't coming over the South Pole.
 
Attached screen captures show Exercise Skyshield in 1961, where RAF Vulcans successfully penetrated US defenses around New York.
 

Attachments

  • skyshield1.GIF
    skyshield1.GIF
    44.1 KB · Views: 195
  • skyshield2.GIF
    skyshield2.GIF
    73.9 KB · Views: 200
datafuser said:
Attached screen captures show Exercise Skyshield in 1961, where RAF Vulcans successfully penetrated US defenses around New York.

Makes one wonder how they'd have delt with a Mach 2 B-58 at 60,000 ft or a Mach 3 B-70 at 75,000.
 
Defending against bombers is pretty tricky. They may not be as fast as fighters (unless you have a B-58); but they have the fuel to fly around the defenses, or attack where they're minimal.

Plus, they generally fly very high and fast, where their larger wings give them a manouverability advantage over an attacking fighter -- there's a confirmed story in a B-36 book about a B-36 chasing a F-86 around the sky on the fighter's tail; and an unconfirmed aprocypcal story recently about a B-52 doing the same to a F-16 at Red Flag or somesuch.

This makes attacking with guns tricky; and against missiles; bombers generally carry a pretty large ECM equipment payload, in addition to lots of chaff+flare.
 
The US had some pretty good air defenses against high flying bombers for a limited number of defense area, it never had any defense against aircraft below 1,000ft except for a few HAWK sites in Florida. Also the SAGE centers that controlled everything were in effectively soft buildings. The US never had enough interceptors to meet its requirements, staggering numbers are required due to the low endurance of the types deployed. The Lamp Light and similar studies called for as many as 6,000 jets. Of course everything was also controlled by SAGE and Missile Master control centers which lacked even basic hardening against atomic blast and could have been blown away by a nuke landing anywhere in the general area. BOMARC doesn't work at all with SAGE, and was kind of awful in general which is why it was so scaled back. Early plans called for thousands of the things at 40+ sites.

Also the US Army never trained all those SAM crews against jamming, at all, or any other countermeasures because the USAF refused to supply any threat systems, nor to have its bombers, which trained all the time to attack US cities, fly realistic attack profiles. Big problem.

The Soviets had many of the same problems, above all the not enough interceptors and no real coverage below 1,000ft issues. Frankly before S-300 and Patriot and fighters-AEW of the same generation a really effective air defense system against nuclear bombers was just not going to happen. Throwing nuclear warheads on all the weapons really did not change this. Nukes were used on so many weapons simply largely the guidance systems sucked so hard; aside from the proposed Sky Shorcher missile which was intended to resolve the lack of interceptor problem vs. mass raids. But nobody was going to be dumb enough to fly a mass raid in the first place even had the commie bombers existed.... so not very logical. Though forcing bombers to disperse did make early ECM much less effective, and made chaff bombers kind of pointless.
 
A 1968 National Intelligence Estimate said the Soviets "has virtually no capability against low-altitude penetration below about 1,000 feet except in a few, limited areas. The Soviets recognize these shortcomings and are deploying new interceptors, surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), and radars in an effort to overcome them."

http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v10/d221

221. National Intelligence Estimate1

Washington, October 31, 1968.

NIE 11–3–68

SOVIET STRATEGIC AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSES

The Problem

To estimate the strength and capabilities of Soviet strategic air and missile defense forces through mid-1970, and general trends in these forces through 1978.2

Conclusions

A. Throughout the postwar period the USSR has devoted a major effort to strategic defense. This effort can be attributed primarily to the size and diversity of US strategic attack forces, although for the future the Soviets must consider the threat posed by third countries, particularly China.

B. We believe that the competition for resources in the USSR is likely to intensify, not only between civilian and military programs, but also within the military establishment. These pressures may exercise a restraining influence on the strategic defense effort, but are unlikely to reduce it below present levels. The trend for the longer term will depend heavily upon Soviet decisions concerning antiballistic missile (ABM) deployment and the related question of strategic arms control.

C. The Soviets have built a formidable system of air defenses, deployed in depth, which would be very effective against subsonic and low-supersonic aircraft attempting to penetrate at medium and high altitudes. The system is less effective against higher performance aircraft and standoff weapons; it has virtually no capability against low-altitude penetration below about 1,000 feet except in a few, limited areas. The Soviets recognize these shortcomings and are deploying new interceptors, surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), and radars in an effort to overcome them.

D. At present, the major effort is directed to counter the threat posed by high-performance aircraft and standoff weapons. Deployment of the SA–5 long-range SAM system is the largest single defensive weapon program now underway. This system represents a considerable improvement over older systems in terms of range, velocity, and firepower. It is being deployed as a barrier defense around the European USSR and for point defense of selected targets. We estimate that there are some 60 SA–5 complexes, and that nearly half are operational; we believe that some 100 complexes will be operational by 1973. The Soviets have also been testing an airborne warning and control system (AWACS) that will probably enter service soon. This system, deployed in coastal areas and used with long-range interceptors, could greatly extend the area in which incoming aircraft could be engaged.

E. The Soviets are also attempting to strengthen their air defenses against low-altitude attack, but their efforts of the past year have resulted in minor improvements rather than in any fundamental solution to the problem. They have deployed all-weather interceptors with improved capabilities for low-altitude attack, and they will probably introduce more advanced SAMs and interceptors better suited for low-altitude defense. The primary limitation on low-altitude defense, however, is surveillance and control. Deployment of new radars has improved tracking capabilities in limited areas down to altitudes of 500 feet and even below, but we expect little advance in ground-based continuous tracking capability at low altitudes during the period of this estimate.

(snip)

Discussion

I. Soviet Strategic Defense Policy

1. Soviet strategic defense forces have gone through several stages of development since World War II. Through the mid-1950's the Soviets attempted to counter the large US strategic bomber force in being with large numbers of air surveillance radars and interceptor aircraft, reinforced at Moscow with large numbers of surface-to-air missiles (SAMs). As the US force obtained higher performance intercontinental bombers, the Soviets in the late 1950's developed and deployed Mach 2 interceptors and extended SAM defenses throughout the country. When the US, in the face of this extensive defense, began practicing low-altitude penetration tactics, the Soviets began in the early 1960's deploying the Firebar interceptor and the SA–3, both possessing better capabilities for low-altitude intercept than earlier systems. The US deployment of a standoff capability with air-to-surface missiles (ASMs), was followed by Soviet development and the current deployment of the Fiddler interceptor and the SA–5 system, which have greater ranges than earlier systems.

(snip)

4. The Soviets probably believe that the massive air defense forces they have built and are building will provide an effective counter to the medium and high-altitude bomber threat, although they realize the problem of low-altitude defense is not yet satisfactorily solved. The most critical requirement of Soviet strategic defense, and the one most difficult to meet despite more than a decade of effort, however, is defense against ballistic missiles. The nature and extent of antiballistic missile (ABM) deployment is almost certainly one of the major questions of Soviet military policy.
 
sferrin said:
starviking said:
sferrin said:
TomS said:
How many missiles were there on the defense? Given the inevitable radar problems, missile failures, simple misses, and decoys/countermeasures, I think it's very likely that there would have been a lot of leakers. The idea that there was an air-tight defense just seems improbable, even today, much less with the technological state of the art in the 1960s.

Technology was worse but then so was the tech of the Soviet bombers, not to mention there were a LOT of SAMS and defensive aircraft.

I do remember reading somewhere that the US had problems with covering it's southern coast. Anyone got more info on this, might be pertinent.

They didn't cover the Southern Coast (as much) because Soviet bombers weren't coming over the South Pole.

Perhaps not pertinent to long-range bombers, but there was Cuba.
 
sferrin said:
Makes one wonder how they'd have delt with a Mach 2 B-58 at 60,000 ft or a Mach 3 B-70 at 75,000.

The B-58 could also do low-altitude penetration as well.

From page 207 of Bill Gunston's 1973 book "Bombers of the West":

... and on 18 September 1959 Erickson flew a B-58 on a mission I hope will long be remembered (anyone under the line of flight certainly will not forget). He took off from Carswell AFB, adjacent to Fort Worth plant, and flew over 1,400 miles to Edwards AFB, California, at the design sea-level limit of Mach 0.93 (a little over 600 knots) never more than 500 feet up. "We were travelling a little faster than a .45 pistol bullet", he said, "no wonder people had trouble recognizing us." This flight demonstrated structural strength, long sea-level range (more than at Mach 2 at optimum high altitude), and the ability to stay under the US radars of 1959 in crossing four states.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom