# B-52 Question



## Zipper730 (Oct 23, 2016)

I'm curious why during the Linebacker II raids, the aircraft were flying at relatively low altitudes (30,000-35,000 feet if I recall), when they were capable of routinely reaching higher altitudes (I heard around 55,000 feet in some cases)?

How much of this was related to the chaff-corridor laying, and how much was to payload? Also, couldn't the B-52's lay their own chaff corridor (they had substantial amounts)


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 23, 2016)

The higher you go, the less accurate your drop is going to be. 
It might not matter with nukes, but they were dropping iron bombs, and attempting to hit specific targets.

The SAMS could still reach them at 55,000, as we'd found out a decade before.


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 7, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> The higher you go, the less accurate your drop is going to be.


So, it was accuracy driven?

Or was it based on the desire for escorts? I remember there was an issue with the F-4 laying the chaff corridors, but the B-52's could just lay their own. I'm curious why they just didn't lay their own corridors whether they came in at 41,500 (which had been planned for attacks on Hanoi and Haiphong) or 33,000 feet.


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 7, 2017)

When you lay your own chaff, it's behind you. It doesn't hide you very well from radars ahead of you.


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 7, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> When you lay your own chaff, it's behind you. It doesn't hide you very well from radars ahead of you.


I thought it had to do with the distance from the chaff to the aircraft versus the length of the radar pulse? If I recall if you were within one half the pulse length times the speed of light (resolution cell) you'd appear on radar as one blip... or you'd blend in with the chaff. I'm not sure the length involved admittedly.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 7, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> When you lay your own chaff, it's behind you. It doesn't hide you very well from radars ahead of you.


That was known even in WW2, German radar operators became very good at picking off the planes dropping "window/chaff"


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 7, 2017)

pbehn said:


> That was known even in WW2, German radar operators became very good at picking off the planes dropping "window/chaff"


Then why did SAC whip up all these plans around laying their own chaff? Seems they had a death wish...


----------



## pbehn (Mar 7, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Then why did SAC whip up all these plans around laying their own chaff? Seems they had a death wish...


Eh?


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 7, 2017)

Because most GAMs were launched from behind the target aircraft, it was a easier targeting solution.


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 7, 2017)

pbehn said:


> Eh?


SAC's nuclear-plans called for the B-52's to lay their own chaff if I recall.



tyrodtom said:


> Because most GAMs were launched from behind the target aircraft, it was a easier targeting solution.


I assume you mean SAM's right?


----------



## pbehn (Mar 7, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> SAC's nuclear-plans called for the B-52's to lay their own chaff if I recall.




Laying chaff/window is like laying a smoke screen on a battle field or battleship, it limits what can be seen by RADAR in and behind the airspace it is laid in. Smoke works wonderfully in a ship only battle, it works great in an army ground battle, it is also used in air displays to show exactly where you are and what lovely lines you make in the sky. Chaff does the same and only affects the accuracy/effectiveness of interceptors/missiles that fly into it.


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 4, 2017)

The ADM-20 could carry either a flare or a chaff dispenser right? If they could fly as high as the B-52 couldn't they lay the cloud in front of the planes and be commanded to do whatever the plane does? It was controlled by the bombardier...


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 4, 2017)

The ADM-20 Quail was less than successful, and they certainly didn't want the Russians to find that out by using it over Vietnam.

I've heard it called a waste of payload, and slightly better than nothing, years later after they retired it.

And just think for a moment about that "could be controlled by the bombardier "statement.
Controlled how ? By radio Transmissions? Radio transmissions could be detected and located even before the invention of radar.

The Quail could be preprogramed before flight, it would defy common sense for it to be controlled externally if the controller wanted to stay undetected.


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 24, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> The ADM-20 Quail was less than successful, and they certainly didn't want the Russians to find that out by using it over Vietnam.


Well at that point weren't we mostly flying low?



> I've heard it called a waste of payload, and slightly better than nothing, years later after they retired it.


It would have made a good chaff-layer at least...



> And just think for a moment about that "could be controlled by the bombardier "statement.
> Controlled how ? By radio Transmissions? Radio transmissions could be detected and located even before the invention of radar.


Yes, but aren't there ways of transmitting secure signals that are not easily detected and decrypted for short periods (i.e. enough to cover the length of a raid)?



> The Quail could be preprogramed before flight


The weave formations they flew were to make lock-on difficult, but the thing is if one had to change course quickly, that would put them away from the decoy's path.


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 24, 2017)

I don't think you understood what i'm saying.
The USAF noticed early on that smart radar operators could tell a Quail from a B-52, they certainly didn't want to give the Russians or Chinese, or any hostile power the chance to figure this out.
It would take time, but eventually it would be noticed. That would then make the Quail useless for the mission it was intended for, a short duration nuclear war, which would be over before anyone had time to notice that the Quail was detectable and get the information around about how to detect it.


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 24, 2017)

I didn't get that a smart operator could tell the difference... Was there anything else that could have laid chaff better at higher altitudes to cover up the B-52's?


----------



## thunderbird (Apr 8, 2019)

The B-52Ds flew so low because the crazy amounts of bombs they were carrying limited their attack altitude.


----------



## Capt. Vick (May 7, 2021)



Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------

