Comment by mrguyorama

Comment by mrguyorama 4 hours ago

3 replies

The R7 ICBM was operationally deployed to northern Russia on February 9th, 1959. The Arrow was canceled on February 20th, 1959.

The Arrow was pointless before it finished development. Canada correctly figured out that further investment into dedicated super-interceptors was a bad choice. They DID buy US interceptors to replace their old ones because 1) You usually hedge your bets when you can in defense spending and 2) Governments were not excited to say "We stopped building these planes because we literally cannot protect you from nuclear weapons now"

The US spent decades continuing down interceptor development and saw exactly zero payoff for it. We retired the Delta Dart in 1986 after never using the garbage machine, which likely wouldn't even have been good at it's job. Consider that the primary armament of the interceptor Canada bought to replace the Arrow was a fucking unguided nuclear rocket. Because that was literally the only interception weapon that provided even a snowballs chance in hell of being effective.

The Detla Dart was built to sit in a shed in the plains of Canada, waiting for a truly terrible day. When SAGE radars saw the wave of bombers, an alarm would sound and the pilot would jump in the plane and turn it on. The plane, automated entirely by SAGE, would rocket up to intercept altitude and be guided to the intercept. Closing rates were in excess of Mach 4. You only had a single pass at the target and if you didn't get them, you would not be able to catch up and eliminate the threat. Missing meant nukes dropping on US cities. Because of this terrible engagement profile, the entire weapons system was automated. You had a screen between your lap that you interacted with like a Vectrex video game to line up with a circle. The actual weapon firing was automated because that's how tight the tolerances were. Early models even had stupid dumbfire WW2 style rockets. One of the first times this interception process and fire control was tested, they blew up the plane towing the target drone. That's just how poor ground based interception was. We are talking like 50% interception rates on a good day.

The Arrow would have been similarly worthless. The only thing these programs succeeded at was stressing out pilots.

lupusreal 3 hours ago

The R-7 was never a practical weapon and the Soviet Union would primarily rely on strategic bombers for their war plans for many years after that. Even during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviets only had a few dozen ICBMs (which is why IRBMs being in Cuba, right next to America, was relevant and desirable for them), the bulk of the threat through the 1970s and into the 80s was bombers.

  • mrguyorama 37 minutes ago

    The R-7 was never a practical weapon but interceptors were never a practical counter to bombers, and that got even more true when nuclear weapons stopped being gravity bombs.

    Notably, the US Navy ran into the exact same problem. The USSR invented a bomber launched cruise missile to take out carriers, and there was no interceptor capable of getting into the air and into engagement range after the bomber showed up on radar but before it was able to launch it's missiles.

    They spent like 15-20 years going down different paths (starting with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_F6D_Missileer) that were sometimes silly and usually a bad project. The eventual and actual solution was: Better airborne early warning doctrine and systems, better picket and CAP doctrine, better ISR, and most importantly of all; enough advancement on missile systems that they actually COULD hit the bomber you selected reliably and reach out and touch them at fifty miles, and now basically any fast multirole fighter you have is a "bomber interceptor".

    The dedicated interceptor plane was a interim role that was dying when the Arrow was cancelled. Average fighter plane speed was increasing enough to make dedicated hypersonic interceptors a poor plan, and missiles fly at Mach 4-8 anyway.

    Bomber speeds also did not go as high as predicted. The bulk of the threat was bombers, but the investment into the kind of super duper fast bombers that the XB-70 represented ended for about the same reason: Missiles and radar got good. The US did build the B-1b, but that doesn't break Mach 2. The TU-160M does hit Mach 2.3, but that's as fast as we went.

    Bombers moved on to low level flying to attempt to survive, which limited speeds anyway, so that's another strike against dedicated "Put a wing on a huge engine" interceptors.

    • lupusreal 17 minutes ago

      Canada never needed a fighter-bomber, and it is a matter of historical record that they did continue to need aircraft for the interception of Soviet bombers, plainly evidenced by Canada purchasing aircraft specifically for that purpose. Those aircraft were not built to be dedicated interceptors but that role is all Canada ever needed and used them for. They would have been better served by aircraft built for it.

      The Soviet ICBM threat was not relevant until many years after the Arrow was canceled; if you knew that before I told you, then I wonder why you even brought it up? Because Diefenbaker did? Diefenbaker was an idiot. Taking his excuses at face value is extremely dumb.

      BTW if you actually wargame it out with realistic scenarios (accounting for the existence of AWACS and the probability of interceptors being in the air already), cold war US Navy interceptors easily get kills on Bears before they get their shots off, and can intercept the ASMs themselves as well. What makes or breaks it is the number of missiles brought to the engagement by both sides. It is by absolutely no means a sure thing for the Soviet bombers, I have no idea where you got such a stupid idea from.