Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I don't know if this is THE reason or not, but by 1957, B36s and B47s were being supplanted by the B52 as the primary strategic nuclear strike weapon, and any hope of fighter escort was clearly no longer feasible. No way was any fighter going to match the range and speed of the almighty BUFF.I'm curious exactly why SAC underwent a reorganization in 1957 and gave up the bulk of their fighter planes to Tactical Air Command?
I could make guesses, but it's one thing to have guesses, and another to have actual answers.
buffnut453 , davparlr , MiTasol , SaparotRob , syscom3 , X XBe02Drvr
From what I recall, the range of the B-36 was about the same as the B-52 without aerial refueling and there were plans to employ escorts. The first idea was to use the XF-85 Goblin and, while that ended up being cancelled: They had thought of using the F-88 for this. While the F-88 was also cancelled, it ended up becoming the F-101.I don't know if this is THE reason or not, but by 1957, B36s and B47s were being supplanted by the B52 as the primary strategic nuclear strike weapon, and any hope of fighter escort was clearly no longer feasible. No way was any fighter going to match the range and speed of the almighty BUFF.
Any way you slice it, even basing escorts at forward bases, with the engine technology of the time, no fighter that could escort the BUFFs "feet dry" to target and back to "feet wet" again would be light and agile enough to be effective in combat. The missiles of the time could not have supported a non maneuvering missile truck "fighter".From what I recall, the range of the B-36 was about the same as the B-52 without aerial refueling and there were plans to employ escorts. The first idea was to use the XF-85 Goblin and, while that ended up being cancelled: They had thought of using the F-88 for this. While the F-88 was also cancelled, it ended up becoming the F-101.
While the F-101's performance was lacking in a number of areas: It didn't seem impossible to have designed an aircraft with better low-speed handling which met the range requirements (though during that period, it seems difficult to determine who knew what).
The initial FICON project incorporated a standard F-84E (49-2115) and a (G)RB-36F-1-CF (49-2707).FiCon (FICON) employed RF-84K (RF-84F converted for the role) rather than F-84F.
As far as I understand it, no target in the world is more than 1500 nm from the sea: I'm not sure where the outer-range where aerial-refueling would be possible prior to being in the range of Soviet interceptors of the time, but aerial refueling extends the range of an aircraft vs. what it would do on it's own fuel.Any way you slice it, even basing escorts at forward bases, with the engine technology of the time, no fighter that could escort the BUFFs "feet dry" to target and back to "feet wet" again would be light and agile enough to be effective in combat. The missiles of the time could not have supported a non maneuvering missile truck "fighter".
To be honest, there is a part of me that assumes that SAC (rightly or not) assumed that nuclear strike was a more surefire way to support bombers than long-ranged fighter-sweeps.The idea of fighter escorts went out operationally with the Thunderjet; by the time SAC transferred its assets to TAC, the main fighter type in use was the F-84F, now operated as a stand-alone nuke-carrying platform and deployed as a Strategic Fighter rather than as a Fighter Escort.
Technically, they were designed as long-ranged fighters to execute roving sweeps ahead of the bombers to clear out the way. This might very well have had to do with the discrepancy in speed between early jet-fighters and propeller-driven bombers, though there were already concepts involving "convoy fighters" that would travel at their own speed (possibly in waves) which would ensure there'd be at least some fighters nearby the bombers to lend assistance.The F-88 (and other penetration fighters) were not designed as bomber escorts.
I thought the USAF at the time had UPT and then specialized training for SAC, ADC, and TAC?Bear in mind too that certain flying training units also transferred to TAC around this time, so it was not just SAC which was affected.
The concept of escorted bombers was, of course, a hold over from what was needed during WWII.
During the early years of the cold war, technology had not advanced enough that an enemy bomber could not effectively be brought down by other than interceptors.
This philosophy changed with better and more reliable SAM tech in later years.
California's I-5 had designated portions for landing/take off of B-52s in the event of an emergency.... and MIRV ICBMs which would render each launching and landing base useless for recovery/regeneration/restrike.
You ain't nuthin' butta Hound Dog! (Waitin' ona Skybolt)It's probably cheaper to simply make the bomber more survivable using stand-off cruise-missiles than to design a fighter than can accompany and escort it all the way
Well, having the bomber survive long enough to release its ordinance would be a starting point. While there was generally an attitude that air-superiority wouldn't be needed for nuclear-war, that might have assumed we caught them with their pants down.Nuclear bombers are by definition expendable. Escorting them in with fighters is difficult due to range limitations on the small airframes. It's probably cheaper to simply make the bomber more survivable using stand-off cruise-missiles than to design a fighter than can accompany and escort it all the way, and support said fighter with standing units and outlay.
It's not like the bombers are going to have a second mission even if they recover safely in CONUS. The bases, if airworthy at all, will probably not be able to regenerate. Why bother with fighters at that point?
I thought the USAF at the time had UPT and then specialized training for SAC, ADC, and TAC?
California's I-5 had designated portions for landing/take off of B-52s in the event of an emergency.
Several other interstates had the same provisions.
The first US ICBM with MIRV was Minuteman III, tested from 1968 with the first operational from Jan 1971. Maybe a bit later than you might expect?... and MIRV ICBMs which would render each launching and landing base useless for recovery/regeneration/restrike.
The first US ICBM with MIRV was Minuteman III, tested from 1968 with the first operational from Jan 1971. Maybe a bit later than you might expect?
The USN fitted Polaris A-3 with a weapon bay containing 3 independently targeted warheads in 1964.