3 ms·

> Intercepting a B-52 sounds like just about the easiest job in combat aviation. Not particularly. A rough rule of thumb is that an interceptor needs a maximum

> Intercepting a B-52 sounds like just about the easiest job in combat aviation. Not particularly. A rough rule of thumb is that an interceptor needs a maximum achievable speed twice that of the cruising speed of its target in order to close the geometry of the interception. A Su-15 couldn't quite achieve that with its full complement of missiles against a Mach 0.9 B-52, but a MiG-25 could do so. [0] The second problem is basing the interceptor in a location that the long-ranged incoming bombers can't just dog-leg to avoid. The Mach 2.8 MiG-25 barely had enough margin to intercept supersonic bombers such as the B-58, Mirage IV, A-5 and FB-111 but those all had much shorter endurances than the B-52 and V-bombers, and so ironically made easier targets; they had to follow much more predictable direct ingress routes and weren't equipped with air-launched decoys. ~~ [0] flip the actors around and you can see why the US abandoned the Mach 3+ YF-12 interceptor. The F-106 and F-15 were fast enough to intercept incoming Tu-95s that slipped past the SAM belts, and the faster Soviet bombers didn't have the range to threaten the USA.

honkhonkpants 10y ago
Your reckoning of the capabilities of the B-52 has me scratching my head. It can fly at 0.9 M, at high altitudes where it is guaranteed to be obliterated by long-range SAMs before it gets anywhere near a target of strategic value, and it can fly at low altitudes, at speeds where any eastern bloc fighter could have caught and destroyed it. That's why I think the idea of American long-range strategic bombers striking the interior of the USSR is just a silly fantasy. It would have required air supremacy to do that, and if you've established air supremacy over the USSR the war has already ended. Indeed, a war between nuclear superpowers would not have lasted long enough for a B-52 to get even half way to the USSR, much less for them to sit on the ground waiting for their air refueling wings to get into a forward position (and probably get annihilated, but that's another problem with the air warfare fantasy). A full-scale war between the USA and the USSR would probably not even have lasted long enough for the President to get his pants on.
- NickNameNick 10y ago
  That really depends on time period. Remember, the b-52 was introduced into service in 1955, and first flew in 1952. Well prior to the introduction of ICBMs.
  - honkhonkpants 10y ago
    Yes but we're speaking about 1976 here.

honkhonkpants 10y ago

Your reckoning of the capabilities of the B-52 has me scratching my head. It can fly at 0.9 M, at high altitudes where it is guaranteed to be obliterated by long-range SAMs before it gets anywhere near a target of strategic value, and it can fly at low altitudes, at speeds where any eastern bloc fighter could have caught and destroyed it. That's why I think the idea of American long-range strategic bombers striking the interior of the USSR is just a silly fantasy. It would have required air supremacy to do that, and if you've established air supremacy over the USSR the war has already ended. Indeed, a war between nuclear superpowers would not have lasted long enough for a B-52 to get even half way to the USSR, much less for them to sit on the ground waiting for their air refueling wings to get into a forward position (and probably get annihilated, but that's another problem with the air warfare fantasy). A full-scale war between the USA and the USSR would probably not even have lasted long enough for the President to get his pants on.

NickNameNick 10y ago
That really depends on time period. Remember, the b-52 was introduced into service in 1955, and first flew in 1952. Well prior to the introduction of ICBMs.
- honkhonkpants 10y ago
  Yes but we're speaking about 1976 here.