Re: Chances of US bombers penetrating Soviet defenses in the 1960’s – 85 percent

Thank you gentlemen for your information.

Has anyone come across any information on how many Schilka / ZSU-23-4s there were in the Canal area and Golan Heights? I would really like to know the density of these cannons?

Re: Chances of US bombers penetrating Soviet defenses in the 1960’s – 85 percent

I thought similar till I learned the details about the losses or damage of A-4s during CAS in YKW 73. Just after they changed from low level to medium level operations the loss rate dropped considerably.

Yes a lot of flak concentrated in small areas caused a lot of damage to fighter-bombers. The Yom Kippur and Viet Nam wars destroyed the bulk of the A-4s. The same situation exist over Viet Nam with the F-105s. The USAF lost over 400 F-105s!! Between wild weasel missions and dive bombing cities -Hanoi, Haiphung, etc. The defense was so dense with a great deal of overlapping coverage. Dropping the weapons was a real hazzard.
In the PGW#1 most of the F-15Es and the Tornados were lost when they were attacking a well defended air fields at a very low altitude and at night. As soon as the SAM threat was removed, these fighter-bombers went up above 1,000-ft (3,050-m).

The coming F-35 is tailored for operations in medium heights and above for similar reasons.
Smart defenders will mass fire-power to the points were an attacker will fly the pop-up maneuver.

Yes, this is one of many real questions about the F-35s. I don’t see them supporting an amphibious landing, just the old Harriers! The F-35 from what I have read, the F-35s will fly the missions of the F-117 steath fighter-bomber!.
I know from the mass media the F-35s are design to attack on day one of WW-3. Smart money says Tomahawks or something similar will pave the way for the F-35s.
I have real problems with self protection of the F-35s against MiG-35s or Su-30s, etc? I think Iran’s usage of the Phoenix Missile probably has the highest kill percentage of any AAM!! While the AMRAAM, Sidewinder, etc. missiles are better than the previous missiles, a fighter-bomber without a gun is not good in a turn and burn dogfight in the future! (Just my opinion but, in war murphy’s law is often accurate.)
It is just down right silly to depend on missiles. No war has taken place where quality ECM, was used by both sides. What will be the kill ratio under severe situations. It has never been done!

Iran claims credit for 79 Iraqi aircraft using the Phoenix Missile! How many missile misfires took place, or failed to hit their intended target I do not know?
I do know US ‘intell’ acknowledges three Iraqi Binder bomber were kill over the northern gulf at longe range by Phoenix equip F-14As. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) a European man had received several pages in which the USAF and SAAF F-15s were advised to stay away from the northern gulf until notified further.

Re: Chances of US bombers penetrating Soviet defenses in the 1960’s – 85 percent

I believe only 6 or so F-111s were shot down by the Vietnamese during the war, they were pretty much defenceless against it. I wonder if the Warsaw Pact could have fared any better?

I knew the number was low. I also knew some of the operational accidents were caused by terrain following radar malfunctioning. I have also read that a couple of F-111s were shot down by squads of foot soldiers! The F-111s flying low, the soldiers fire their AK-47s and a couple of bullets hit the F-111s in critical systems and the F-111 is shot down… “the Golden BB theory!”
Several, deaths occurred when the ‘crew capsule’ failed upon ejection.

datafuser, thank you for the information -Adrian

Re: Chances of US bombers penetrating Soviet defenses in the 1960’s – 85 percent

In a WW3 scenario in the 1960’s, B-52s and B-58s would have tried to penetrate defenses by flying low (below 1,000 feet) and rolling back defenses with nuclear-tipped stand-off missiles such as the AGM-28 Hound Dog.

Some places the USAF would attack at low altitudes and many others at high altitudes. It greatly depended on the radar network’s density. Many places the radars were disperced far apart enough where high altitude attack approaches were a good way to attack. Using Hound Dog air launched cruise missiles to attack distant radar sites. or interceptor bases. Launching ‘Quail’ decoy missiles. These little missiles had the RCS of a B-52! This could cause the Soviet defenses to feel overloaded.
The F-111s flew at night, approaching the airbases very low at transonic speeds. They would drop bombs timed detonations, crater the runway and, mines to explode when mechanized equipment came to repair the runways. The F-111s also dropped extremely bright flares that flashed then burn very bright. This bothered the AAA gunner’s eyesight and night vision goggles.

The jamming was so complete that the PRC-AF sent a protest letter to the USA about how the southern radars was completely obstructed for their uses much of the time of the attacks.

The protest I found funny. Throughout the Viet Nam war, Pan Am airlines had agreement with PRC to allow their B-707 flights from Tokyo, along the PRC/VN border (a corridor) to New Delhi, India. If I remember correctly, these flights occurred once per week. The USAF equipped the B-707s with detect equipment to detect “IF” the airliner were ever tracked -no! Nor did the USAF do anything to interfere with this situation.

Re: Chances of US bombers penetrating Soviet defenses in the 1960’s – 85 percent

“I would like to know how this report can fit with the operations in Vietnam, where with heavy ECM support, fighter support, and tactical advantages (a lor of fuel reserves) bombing campaigns were still a challenge.”

Overall, I felt the North Vietnamese fought a defensive (only) battle very well and effectively. They fought the battle for the most part on their terms! They were the test-grounds for localized Soviet air defense theory!
During the Viet Nam conflict, US air power was not used in a proficient manor. Targets, times, altitudes etc., were all controlled by “DC”! But…. the Vietnamese War was a regional war and required far less and inter-active operational issues than a global war. Other than a few local defenses in Europe, US forces did not have massive SAM/AAA base.
Basically, “Operations Rolling Thunder” and “Linebacker 1” were failures! A few small air battles were a success, such as Khe San were a few example of how to apply air power.
The USA had some bad surprises, having combat at lower to medium altitudes, SAM networks, truly massive AAA, air to air missiles that turned out to be good for intercepting bombers not dog fighting. (NOTE) These defenses were very dense and were costly to break in blood and aircraft. All the sort of problems encountered in a small regional war which is far different than a global war.
In December 1972, President Nixon told the US forces to take off the ‘gloves off” and finally fought the air war the way the generals had wanted, not the way the politicians had wanted! The results were that over the period from Dec. 18th to 29th, 12 tactical aircraft were shot down. Plus 15 B-52s shot down out of 741 B-52 sorties. That is a 2% loss rate. (To put that into perspective, that is a lower loss rate than the USAAF suffered over German occupied area after the Luftwaffe stopped sending up interceptors!!) The December raids brought the North Viet Namese representatives back to the Paris peace talks, in January of 1973.
Hanoi launched all its 2,000+ SAMs, trying to hit targets that were covered by effective ECM. B-52’s saw no SAMs on Dec. 28th and 29th! There were 15 B-52s shot down in the 11 days.
NOTE;
Early in the war, an F-4 Phantom shot down an F-105 at a distance of 24-mi.! So, the rules of engage were changed so fighters had to visual ID first, then fire a missile. This greatly reduced the Sparrow Missile capabilities. It was designed to intercept at long range not highly maneuvering targets.

During the Linebacker II in December 1972, B-52s went in at high altitude, hitting more or less the same target area again and again.

No, there were many inter-connected networks that existed in NVN, a small country. The B-52’s went in at 37,000-ft. Operating in large clusters, conducted operations covering themselves with ECM. If the groups did not cover themselves well, one of the other the clusters would loose at least one bomber.
There was one interference by DC, that the 33 groups fly in three bomber group clusters. Plus DC had them fly the same altitude and in-line with each other! On day four the pilots revolted and refuse to fly! The commanders allowed their bombers to approach their target from all degrees of the compass. F-111 bombers came in very low and kept the VN’s runways cratered/unusable.
The jamming was so complete that the PRC-AF sent a protest letter to the USA about how the southern radars was completely obstructed for their uses much of the time of the attacks.

Re: Chances of US bombers penetrating Soviet defenses in the 1960’s – 85 percent

Until the advent of modern AWACS, all radars were unable to detect low flying aircraft. AEW was a game changer.
While most people concentrate their attention on the USA or USSR attacking over the northern polar regions, in reality there was a lot of effort attack each other from other directions. In a massive air attacks I know of the Soviet had plans to attack the USA by flying south, parallel to the US coastline, then turn and penetrate US airspace from over Mexico and the Gulf of Mexico! The USAF was going to make massive attack on the PRC to make a massive or super highway into the southern less protected USSR!

Attached are three photos of RB-47 over flights of Soviet territory and, one photo of a cannon shell that hit one RB-47. Evidently despite all the claims about interceptor capabilities, high speed and high altitude do lot leave much of a window for interceptors. The one RB-47 that was hit by a cannon shell, the MiG that intercepted it only got one pass at it. Then the RB-47 was followed as it flew over Finland, Sweden and, Norway!
The B-47 medium bomber was an air defense nightmare! It flew very high, near a high mach number making it virtually impossible to intercept. Plus the USAF had 1,500 B-47s

Re: When did Europe awaken to Stealth?

URL=”http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/stealth-tech-obsolete/“]China, Russia Could Make U.S. Stealth Tech Obsolete[/URL] WIRED article
The Maturing Revolution in Military Affairs (PDF link) Barry Watts

If the Russian AF and PLAAF felt that stealth offered little protection versus the new radars, they would not be developing the T-50 and J20 as high priority programs.
They recognize that when the current technology is detectable future means of detection everything in the sky will be detectable. Jamming or ECM will be required for all attacking aircraft. The amount of jamming to defeat the radars for non-stealthy air will also render stealth aircraft invisible to all other RF detection devices.