If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
B-58's targets in a nuclear war
All right, the source I quoted in my first post indicated that some
B-52s would have landed somewhere in the Middle East after bombing Soviet targets. "7. The air bases in Spain were originally built for SAC operations, and SAC still has contingency plans for their use. These involve the prestrike forward deployment of some B-58 bombers and accompanying tankers, the post-strike recovery for a few B-52's [1 line of source text not declassified] in the Middle East." As I understand, the B-58 was a weapon for deterence, it was a 1 way strike mission....1 way. Ken yes, like the B-47 they were intended for one way missions. Runways to land on outside the USSR would likely have been selected but noone (least of all the crews) expected to ever reach them (or find them in usable condition if they made it). |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
B-58's targets in a nuclear war
Diamond Jim wrote:
It is late at night and I can't sleep so here are a few thoughts I recall from discussions at the time. As an example this is how the war would have probably been fought in the 1980's. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At +60min the strategic portion of the nuclear war is over. The use of tactical weapons at sea and wherever there are land battles will continue until the combatants either run out of tactical nukes or targets. It should be assumed that every country that had a deliverable nuke weapon used them against someone rather than loose them. Wow...it makes me queasy just thinking about it all. The most mind-bogglingly destructive act that mankind could ever conceive. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
B-58's targets in a nuclear war
Darrell S wrote: "KDR" wrote in message ups.com... A 1968 letter from Defense Secretary Clifford to State Secretary Rusk at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/jo...b/xii/2262.htm mentioned that the air bases in Spain were originally built for SAC operations and some B-58 bombers and accompanying tankers were earmarked for forward deployment there. How many refuels were needed for a fully-laden B-58 to bomb its target in the USSR and come back to Spain? On a side note, Vice Admiral Gerald E. Miller wrote in his book "Nuclear Weapons and Aircraft Carriers" that the Navy RA-5C Vigilantes - operating from carriers in the Bay of Biscay - were assigned to targets in Eastern Europe. Darrell S wrote: Probably 2 refuelings since the B-58's were first kept in Texas and later in Arkansas and Indiana. Thanks for the reply but what I want to know is the number of required refuelings when the B-58s flew from bases in Spain to bomb targets in the USSR and come back to Spain. B-58s were not "based" in Spain. We occasionally flew B-58s there for weapon loading practice and to test the ability to deploy them there if the situation required it. I flew one from Madrid to Little Rock after another crew had flown it from Little Rock to Spain. There may have been some contingency plans but, as aircrews, we never studied them or considered them. When the ballistic missile threat from submarines off our coasts reduced the early warning time we began deploying some B-58s to other bases but they were in the U.S.. This was done to reduce the possiblility of them all being wiped out before any could launch. Potential war sorties out of the U.S. did not include returning to the U.S.. Post strike bases were on the periphery of the Soviet Union and China. But... IF... the B-58 were to launch from Spain, strike USSR, and return, it should not require any air refuelings except for very long sorties deep into Eastern USSR.. Sorry to make light off that. The Okinawa AFB is melted, but Tokyo International airport is available, please have your passports ready. Ken |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
B-58's targets in a nuclear war
Darrell S wrote: "KDR" wrote in message ups.com... A 1968 letter from Defense Secretary Clifford to State Secretary Rusk at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/jo...b/xii/2262.htm mentioned that the air bases in Spain were originally built for SAC operations and some B-58 bombers and accompanying tankers were earmarked for forward deployment there. How many refuels were needed for a fully-laden B-58 to bomb its target in the USSR and come back to Spain? On a side note, Vice Admiral Gerald E. Miller wrote in his book "Nuclear Weapons and Aircraft Carriers" that the Navy RA-5C Vigilantes - operating from carriers in the Bay of Biscay - were assigned to targets in Eastern Europe. Darrell S wrote: Probably 2 refuelings since the B-58's were first kept in Texas and later in Arkansas and Indiana. Thanks for the reply but what I want to know is the number of required refuelings when the B-58s flew from bases in Spain to bomb targets in the USSR and come back to Spain. B-58s were not "based" in Spain. We occasionally flew B-58s there for weapon loading practice and to test the ability to deploy them there if the situation required it. I flew one from Madrid to Little Rock after another crew had flown it from Little Rock to Spain. There may have been some contingency plans but, as aircrews, we never studied them or considered them. When the ballistic missile threat from submarines off our coasts reduced the early warning time we began deploying some B-58s to other bases but they were in the U.S.. This was done to reduce the possiblility of them all being wiped out before any could launch. Potential war sorties out of the U.S. did not include returning to the U.S.. Post strike bases were on the periphery of the Soviet Union and China. But... IF... the B-58 were to launch from Spain, strike USSR, and return, it should not require any air refuelings except for very long sorties deep into Eastern USSR.. Thanks a lot for the reply. Did the post-strike bases on the periphery of the Soviet Union and China include bases in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
B-58's targets in a nuclear war
KDR wrote: A 1968 letter from Defense Secretary Clifford to State Secretary Rusk at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/jo...b/xii/2262.htm mentioned that the air bases in Spain were originally built for SAC operations and some B-58 bombers and accompanying tankers were earmarked for forward deployment there. The B-58 was a high-maintenance airplane and very rarely moved for very long from home base. Moving a squadron for an extended stay would be a logistical challenge-- just the number of tools, spares, and test gear was not something done on a whim. I suspect there were no cargo aircraft assigned for such a move, so it's not something that could be set in motion in under a week or so. During the Cuban Crisis some B-47's were flown to various disparate civilian airports within the US, but those required much less ground support. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
B-58's targets in a nuclear war
Darrell S wrote: "KDR" wrote in message ups.com... A 1968 letter from Defense Secretary Clifford to State Secretary Rusk at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/jo...b/xii/2262.htm mentioned that the air bases in Spain were originally built for SAC operations and some B-58 bombers and accompanying tankers were earmarked for forward deployment there. How many refuels were needed for a fully-laden B-58 to bomb its target in the USSR and come back to Spain? On a side note, Vice Admiral Gerald E. Miller wrote in his book "Nuclear Weapons and Aircraft Carriers" that the Navy RA-5C Vigilantes - operating from carriers in the Bay of Biscay - were assigned to targets in Eastern Europe. Darrell S wrote: Probably 2 refuelings since the B-58's were first kept in Texas and later in Arkansas and Indiana. Thanks for the reply but what I want to know is the number of required refuelings when the B-58s flew from bases in Spain to bomb targets in the USSR and come back to Spain. B-58s were not "based" in Spain. We occasionally flew B-58s there for weapon loading practice and to test the ability to deploy them there if the situation required it. I flew one from Madrid to Little Rock after another crew had flown it from Little Rock to Spain. There may have been some contingency plans but, as aircrews, we never studied them or considered them. When the ballistic missile threat from submarines off our coasts reduced the early warning time we began deploying some B-58s to other bases but they were in the U.S.. This was done to reduce the possiblility of them all being wiped out before any could launch. Potential war sorties out of the U.S. did not include returning to the U.S.. Post strike bases were on the periphery of the Soviet Union and China. But... IF... the B-58 were to launch from Spain, strike USSR, and return, it should not require any air refuelings except for very long sorties deep into Eastern USSR.. Thanks a lot for the reply. Did the post-strike bases on the periphery of the Soviet Union and China include bases in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan? That's still rather "sensitive" information. I flew the B-47 and the B-52 as well as the B-58. Post strike bases were planned all around the USSR and China. That includes Europe, North Africa, the Mid-East and Asia. Some bases were planned to have fuel so the bombers could re-deploy back to North America. Many weren't "bases", just runways and I'm not sure the host countries even knew they were in our plans, |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
B-58's targets in a nuclear war
"Darrell S" wrote in message news Darrell S wrote: "KDR" wrote in message ups.com... A 1968 letter from Defense Secretary Clifford to State Secretary Rusk at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/jo...b/xii/2262.htm mentioned that the air bases in Spain were originally built for SAC operations and some B-58 bombers and accompanying tankers were earmarked for forward deployment there. How many refuels were needed for a fully-laden B-58 to bomb its target in the USSR and come back to Spain? On a side note, Vice Admiral Gerald E. Miller wrote in his book "Nuclear Weapons and Aircraft Carriers" that the Navy RA-5C Vigilantes - operating from carriers in the Bay of Biscay - were assigned to targets in Eastern Europe. Darrell S wrote: Probably 2 refuelings since the B-58's were first kept in Texas and later in Arkansas and Indiana. Thanks for the reply but what I want to know is the number of required refuelings when the B-58s flew from bases in Spain to bomb targets in the USSR and come back to Spain. B-58s were not "based" in Spain. We occasionally flew B-58s there for weapon loading practice and to test the ability to deploy them there if the situation required it. I flew one from Madrid to Little Rock after another crew had flown it from Little Rock to Spain. There may have been some contingency plans but, as aircrews, we never studied them or considered them. When the ballistic missile threat from submarines off our coasts reduced the early warning time we began deploying some B-58s to other bases but they were in the U.S.. This was done to reduce the possiblility of them all being wiped out before any could launch. Potential war sorties out of the U.S. did not include returning to the U.S.. Post strike bases were on the periphery of the Soviet Union and China. But... IF... the B-58 were to launch from Spain, strike USSR, and return, it should not require any air refuelings except for very long sorties deep into Eastern USSR.. Thanks a lot for the reply. Did the post-strike bases on the periphery of the Soviet Union and China include bases in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan? That's still rather "sensitive" information. I flew the B-47 and the B-52 as well as the B-58. Post strike bases were planned all around the USSR and China. That includes Europe, North Africa, the Mid-East and Asia. Some bases were planned to have fuel so the bombers could re-deploy back to North America. Many weren't "bases", just runways and I'm not sure the host countries even knew they were in our plans, While it may be "sensitive" information today, I seriously doubt that it is classified in any way. (The general knowledge, not the specific details.) As for the host countries knowledge at the time????? The fact that the US had nuke weapons, in such places as Greenland, Tiwan, South Korea, Japan, (places in mainland Japan, plus Okinawa, Chiba Jima, Iwo Jima) and a lot of other places around the world, has been know for a number of years. That the host country didn't know about it would argue that they didn't know about plans to use their runways as recovery bases either. The fact that the US had weapons at these places when the host country didn't know about it, isn't talked about because of its "sensitive" nature, but the general knowledge isn't classified while the specific details may still be. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
B-58's targets in a nuclear war
"Diamond Jim" wrote in message m... [trim] Thanks a lot for the reply. Did the post-strike bases on the periphery of the Soviet Union and China include bases in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan? That's still rather "sensitive" information. I flew the B-47 and the B-52 as well as the B-58. Post strike bases were planned all around the USSR and China. That includes Europe, North Africa, the Mid-East and Asia. Some bases were planned to have fuel so the bombers could re-deploy back to North America. Many weren't "bases", just runways and I'm not sure the host countries even knew they were in our plans, While it may be "sensitive" information today, I seriously doubt that it is classified in any way. (The general knowledge, not the specific details.) As for the host countries knowledge at the time????? The fact that the US had nuke weapons, in such places as Greenland, Tiwan, South Korea, Japan, (places in mainland Japan, plus Okinawa, Chiba Jima, Iwo Jima) and a lot of other places around the world, has been know for a number of years. That the host country didn't know about it would argue that they didn't know about plans to use their runways as recovery bases either. The fact that the US had weapons at these places when the host country didn't know about it, isn't talked about because of its "sensitive" nature, but the general knowledge isn't classified while the specific details may still be. Japan? Japan has a rabid anti-nuke crowd. The US had dual-key nukes in a number of countries, but I had never heard of any in Japan. There was always a bit of a farce about these - 1 US MP and 2 host country ones watching each plane. The landing sites didn't require pre-approval from the host nation. Japan's anti nuke policy wouldn't apply to a plane that had jettisoned the offending devices. :-) During and after a strategic nuclear war diplomatic letters of protest don't rank very high. One of the more off-the wall plans I remember reading about involved the embassy marines sizing control of the airport and fuel trucks to refuel outbound bombers. This was in Iceland(?) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
B-58's targets in a nuclear war
How many refuels were needed for a fully-laden B-58 to bomb its
target in the USSR and come back to Spain? On a side note, Vice Admiral Gerald E. Miller wrote in his book "Nuclear Weapons and Aircraft Carriers" that the Navy RA-5C Vigilantes - operating from carriers in the Bay of Biscay - were assigned to targets in Eastern Europe. Darrell S wrote: Probably 2 refuelings since the B-58's were first kept in Texas and later in Arkansas and Indiana. Thanks for the reply but what I want to know is the number of required refuelings when the B-58s flew from bases in Spain to bomb targets in the USSR and come back to Spain. B-58s were not "based" in Spain. We occasionally flew B-58s there for weapon loading practice and to test the ability to deploy them there if the situation required it. I flew one from Madrid to Little Rock after another crew had flown it from Little Rock to Spain. There may have been some contingency plans but, as aircrews, we never studied them or considered them. When the ballistic missile threat from submarines off our coasts reduced the early warning time we began deploying some B-58s to other bases but they were in the U.S.. This was done to reduce the possiblility of them all being wiped out before any could launch. Potential war sorties out of the U.S. did not include returning to the U.S.. Post strike bases were on the periphery of the Soviet Union and China. But... IF... the B-58 were to launch from Spain, strike USSR, and return, it should not require any air refuelings except for very long sorties deep into Eastern USSR.. Thanks a lot for the reply. Did the post-strike bases on the periphery of the Soviet Union and China include bases in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan? That's still rather "sensitive" information. I flew the B-47 and the B-52 as well as the B-58. Post strike bases were planned all around the USSR and China. That includes Europe, North Africa, the Mid-East and Asia. Some bases were planned to have fuel so the bombers could re-deploy back to North America. Many weren't "bases", just runways and I'm not sure the host countries even knew they were in our plans, While it may be "sensitive" information today, I seriously doubt that it is classified in any way. (The general knowledge, not the specific details.) As for the host countries knowledge at the time????? The fact that the US had nuke weapons, in such places as Greenland, Tiwan, South Korea, Japan, (places in mainland Japan, plus Okinawa, Chiba Jima, Iwo Jima) and a lot of other places around the world, has been know for a number of years. That the host country didn't know about it would argue that they didn't know about plans to use their runways as recovery bases either. The fact that the US had weapons at these places when the host country didn't know about it, isn't talked about because of its "sensitive" nature, but the general knowledge isn't classified while the specific details may still be. That's exactly why I used the term "sensitive" rather than "classified". Pundits frequently correctly state that nuclear weapons are in a particular place but for a military person to confirm that with his personal knowledge is not recommended. Most especially information about weapon types and aircraft/weapon numbers. A similar situation exists on discussions about what countries permit our military aircraft/weapons to be on their soil. Some country leaders may "privately" allow our aircraft and weapons on their soil but, for political purposes, don't wish that information to become public knowledge. I don't approve or disapprove of that secrecy but.... that's the way it is. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
B-58's targets in a nuclear war
"Robert" wrote in message ... "Diamond Jim" wrote in message m... [trim] Thanks a lot for the reply. Did the post-strike bases on the periphery of the Soviet Union and China include bases in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan? That's still rather "sensitive" information. I flew the B-47 and the B-52 as well as the B-58. Post strike bases were planned all around the USSR and China. That includes Europe, North Africa, the Mid-East and Asia. Some bases were planned to have fuel so the bombers could re-deploy back to North America. Many weren't "bases", just runways and I'm not sure the host countries even knew they were in our plans, While it may be "sensitive" information today, I seriously doubt that it is classified in any way. (The general knowledge, not the specific details.) As for the host countries knowledge at the time????? The fact that the US had nuke weapons, in such places as Greenland, Tiwan, South Korea, Japan, (places in mainland Japan, plus Okinawa, Chiba Jima, Iwo Jima) and a lot of other places around the world, has been know for a number of years. That the host country didn't know about it would argue that they didn't know about plans to use their runways as recovery bases either. The fact that the US had weapons at these places when the host country didn't know about it, isn't talked about because of its "sensitive" nature, but the general knowledge isn't classified while the specific details may still be. Japan? Japan has a rabid anti-nuke crowd. The US had dual-key nukes in a number of countries, but I had never heard of any in Japan. There was always a bit of a farce about these - 1 US MP and 2 host country ones watching each plane. The landing sites didn't require pre-approval from the host nation. Japan's anti nuke policy wouldn't apply to a plane that had jettisoned the offending devices. :-) During and after a strategic nuclear war diplomatic letters of protest don't rank very high. One of the more off-the wall plans I remember reading about involved the embassy marines sizing control of the airport and fuel trucks to refuel outbound bombers. This was in Iceland(?) Japan may have a rabid anti-nuke crowd but that doesn't change the facts! The US put nukes into Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan on Nike missiles, with or without the host countries permission and they weren't "dual -key" either. South Korea, Taiwan, and Chiba-Jima (a Japanese island) had short/medium/intermediate range ballistic missiles, in addition of the Nike SAM's. Iwo Jima, Okinawa, also had gravity bombs (nukes) stored there. In mainland Japan: The US Army had nuke warheads for the Nike missiles, and most likely some tactical warheads for the Honest John rocket, etc. The US Navy and USAF had several locations where they stored gravity nuke bombs, torpedoes, depth charges, and missile warheads. Probably the easiest and quickest way to confirm this, would be to do a google on the "Nike Missiles in Okinawa". I believe these were the last that the US operated in Japan. (IIRC to the 1970's) As nuke's are very likely still stored in Japan by the US Navy (and USAF ??) I don't know what google would find there. As a matter of policy, during the late 50's and into the 60's the US put nukes in a lot of different places, without the host countries (official or otherwise) knowledge or consent. This first became public knowledge in the mid- 1990's with the de-classification of information from the Cuban Missile Crisis. The knowledge that the US had deployed nuke missiles in Turkey (and Italy) was known but when information started becoming available in the mid 90's it came out that the US had circled the Soviet Union, China and North Korea with nukes. BTW as the number of US Marines stationed at a US Embassy is seldom more than a dozen, its not very like that they will be sizing any airports/tankers. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
N. Korea's Nuclear Weapon Test, Possible 'dud', 1 Kiloton or less ? | AirRaid | Naval Aviation | 0 | October 9th 06 10:15 PM |
Iran's nuclear program | Thelasian | Military Aviation | 107 | August 31st 04 06:35 AM |
What is missile defense? An expensive fraud Bush needs Poland as a future nuclear battlefield | Paul J. Adam | Military Aviation | 1 | August 9th 04 08:29 PM |
Czechoslovak nuclear weapons? Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...) | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 25 | January 17th 04 02:18 PM |
Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...) | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 0 | December 7th 03 08:20 PM |