MiG-I7U prototype, armed with cannon on the wing roots and unguided rockets.

In my opinion the Avro Canada CF-100 Canuck is lacking speed (3M Bison-B might even outrun it) and the guided AAM's or at least a Genie nuclear rocket to consider it as a real threat during a nigh-time Bear hunt.

The effectiveness of the FFAR rockets against a drone, even during broad during daylight were demonstrated during "The Battle of Palmdale".

Thanks for the reply but correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't that MiG-I7U prototype and it's Mig I-75 follow up (also prototype) an interceptor?
If so and with a maximum range of 1,470 km (not combat radius) this aircraft shouldn't have the ability to escort bombers up to America or Canada.

There's some conflicting data on the top speed of the CF-100 Canuck's top speed and the Wikipedia data seems to be wrong, at least compared with other sources.

For example in the following sites, it's stated that the CF-100 Canuck's top speed was 650mph or 1046km/h:

https://books.google.pt/books?id=GrJR8oQ...eed&f=false

http://www.aviastar.org/air/canada/canada_canuck.php


While the following site has a more "conservative" top speed of 525knots or 972.3 km/h:
http://www.canadianwings.com/Aircraft/aircraftDetail.php?CANUCK-8

But even considering any of the three sites, the CF-100 seems to be faster than either the M-4 or the Tu-95 and definitely faster than what is indicated on Wikipedia.

It's also possible that the difference in top speed from those 3 sites could be due to the version of the CF-100 depicted on the specifications. There were three (3) versions of the CF-100 that entered in full production and service: the Mk3, Mk4 and Mk5. And for example the Mk4 had a more powerful engine compared to the Mk3 (which means that the Mk4 was likely faster than the Mk3) while the Mk5 had better high altitude performance compared to the previous versions such as the Mk4.
Honestly I believe more on the top speeds indicated on those sites than on Wikipedia, mainly due to the fact that the American equivalent of the CF-100, the Northrop F-89 Scorpion had a top speed of 635mph or 1022km/h and since both aircraft were rather similar (in both role and general aerodynamics) the top speed between the CF-100 and F-89 shouldn't be that different.

Finally regarding the Rocket pack weapon against air targets:
First and regarding the episode that you mentioned the "The Battle of Palmdale", those F-89 were trying to shoot down a quite small plane which was a WWII era F6F-5 Hellcat (drone version) fighter. Those rocket packs were meant to shot down very large aircraft (bombers) and the first and only use in combat of such weapons was during WWII where German Me-262 jet fighters used similar rocket packs, the R-4M with a good deal of success. Fortunately for the allied bomber crews the Germans had very few of those rockets available to them. Here are the rockets used by the Germans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R4M
Actually the concept of those US build rocket pack were based on the German ones.

Besides this, the Mk4 version of the CF-100 was also armed with four (4) .50 machine guns (together with the rockets). The Mk3 only had the four (4) .50 machine gun armament while the Mk5 only had the Rocket armament.

At the end of 1951, the first QB-17 target drone was hit by a XSAM-G-7 guided surface to air missile above the White Sands proving ground.


Just 1,5 years later at Kapustin Yar a target Tu-4 (Bull - Soviet copy of the B-29 Superfortress) was killed by a single V-300 missile.


It become pretty clear, that flying a subsonic bomber above a SAM defended city and dropping a nuclear bomb soon will be impossible.
Bombers simply needed to be faster.

Mikoyan contemporary design using the new Lyulka AL-7F afterburner turbojet promised (Mach-2) speed, but lacked inter continental range...


... while Tupolev's Tu-95 Bear had the range, but lacked speed.

They were ordered to crack this nut together.

(Mikoyan at the left, Tupolev at the right)

The aircraft-carrier-aircraft concept would provide intercontinental range, standoff launch range enough to avoid SAMs, and high altitude Mach2 penetration speed for the K-20. (Complex-20*)




To prove the concept, Mikoyan modified some serial MiG-19's called as SM-20*, while Tupolev modified the first Bear prototype as Tu-95K.



The 2.3t RDS-37D 3Mt yield weapon was replaced the I-7F cockpit.
To save weight, Mikoyan removed flaps, gear, guns, and radar.
The size of the vertical tail was reduced to fit into the bomber.




The K-20M (AS-3 Kangaroo) missile had a weight of 11.6t (with 3,8t kerosene on-board), speed of Mach2, with a penetration altitude of 15km.
During its flight, it had to be remotely guided from the Tu-95K Bear-B.

When the bomber approached the target to 600km, the K-20 was lowered by almost 1m, and its afterburner engine was started.
After dropping it from the Tu-95K, it accelerated to Mach2, and climbed in front of the bomber to 15km barometric altitude.
The YaD1-2 (Crown Drum) YaD1-2 radar (upper smaller one) of the Bear tracked and guided the K-20M.
At 450km from the target, the YaD1-1 ground mapping radar (big lower one, causing the duck-face look) of the Tu-95K could find the target, and the final guidance could begin.
The system had an aiming error (due to the ground mapping radar resolution) of 8km, but the Bear was 360km away when the Kangaroo arrived to its target.

*"20" is named after the carrier Tu-20 design.95, later called Tu-95.

Serial production of the Tu-95K (Bear-B) armed with the K-20M (AS-3 Kangaroo) missile is started in 1959.



1961 flyby in Tushino.



Tu-95K (Bear-B) production;
1959 - 17
1960 - 19
1961 - 10
As the heavy missile seriously limited the bomber range, in flight refueling was retrofitted to earlier produced ones.

Tu-95KM (Bear-C) with built in flight refueling capability, and improved jamming.
1962 - 10
1963 - 7
1964 - 3
1965 - 2

All together 130 K-20M (AS-3 Kangaroo) cruise missile was produced.

The total of 69 planes were allocated to three bomber regiments,
- 1006th TBAP (heavy bomber regiment) of the 106th TBAD (heavy bomber division) based in Uzin (near Kiev)
- 182th TBAP (heavy bomber regiment) based in Mozdok (in Osetia) of the 106th TBAD (heavy bomber division) based in Uzin
- 1226th TBAP (heavy bomber regiment) of the 79th TBAD (heavy bomber division) based in Semipalatinsk (in Kazakhstan)

1965 can be considered as a tipping point for the DA (Long-Range Aviation) forces, capable of delivering almost 200 nuclear devices to the USA.



DA fielded 9 regiments in 4 divisions.

128 bombers
- 26 Tu-95 Bear-A
- 17 Tu-95M Bear-A
- 85 3M Bison

69 cruise missile carriers
- 47 Tu-95K Bear-B
- 22 Tu-95KM Bear-C

106th TBAD (heavy bomber division) based in Uzin
- 409th TBAP (heavy bomber regiment) armed with Tu-95/Tu-95M (Bear-A) bombers
- 1006th TBAP (heavy bomber regiment) armed with Tu-95K/Tu-95KM (Bear-B/C) cruise missile carriers
- 182th TBAP (heavy bomber regiment) based in Mozdok armed with Tu-95K/Tu-95KM (Bear-B/C) cruise missile carriers

79th TBAD (heavy bomber division) based in Semipalatinsk
- 1223th TBAP (heavy bomber regiment) armed with Tu-95/Tu-95M (Bear-A) bombers
- 1226th TBAP (heavy bomber regiment) armed with Tu-95K/Tu-95KM (Bear-B/C) cruise missile carriers

201th TBAD (heavy bomber division) based in Engels
- 1096th TBAP (heavy bomber regiment) armed with 3M (Bison-B) bombers
- 1230th TBAP (heavy bomber regiment) armed with 3M (Bison-B) bombers

73rd TBAD (heavy bomber division) based in Ukrainka
- 40th TBAP (heavy bomber regiment) armed with 3M (Bison-B) bombers
- 79th TBAP (heavy bomber regiment) armed with 3M (Bison-B) bombers

RVSN (Strategic Missile Troops) had 226 ICBMs fielded in 1965, and kept doubling it for several years...
420 ICBM in 1966
820 ICBM in 1967
1020 ICBM in 1968
... the age of the polar bombers is ended.

Very interesting info there Hpasp, once again thanks for sharing!

Regarding that K-20M (AS-3 Kangaroo) cruise missile and with it's apparent CEP (Circular error probable) of around 8km and even with it's nuclear warhead, I would say that the K-20M missile effectiveness would be limited against targets smaller than a city.

If you look at the Nike Hercules defended areas* in the US, than the 8x8km target box (considered as a hit, not CEP) would been enough for a 3Mt yield weapon.

Cities
Baltimore (5), Boston (3), Bridgeport (1), Buffalo (1), Chicago (9), Cleveland (3), Detroit (6), Hartford (2), Los Angeles (9), Milwaukee (3), New York (10), Niagara Falls (2), Norfolk (3), Philadelphia (5), Pittsburgh (6), Providence (2), San Francisco (5), Seattle (3), Washington (5), Miami (5), Hawaii (4)

Air Force Bases
Ellsworth AFB (1), Fairchild AFB (1), Loring AFB (2), Travis AFB (2), Thule AFB – Greenland (4)
Anchorage (3), Fairbanks (5), Kansas (4), Minneapolis (4), Cincinnati (4), Dallas-Fort Worth (4), St. Louis (4)
Barksdale AFB (2), Bergstrom AFB (2), Dyess AFB (2), Lincoln AFB (2), Offutt AFB (2), Robins AFB (2), Turner AFB (2).
Walker AFB (2)

Nuclear Research Facility
Hanford (1)

During night, the small RCS, Mach2 speed K-20M flying at 50kft would have been a tough target.
If I had to make a theoretical calculation, than against New York 6 cruise missile would be launched, plus followed by 18 bomber...
... and enough if only one can pass through.



*appreciate help on categorizing the defended areas better

This is some good info Hpasp, keep it up.

Those ICBMs they would be TEL mounted mobile land based right?
All that country to hide in.

I think it's a interceptor, is Hsaps who should clarify what he tried to tell us.

piston79: great, where did you find it?

You wouldn't need HE rounds in the M-61.

1,300m/s Aircraft + 900m/s gun muzzle velocity = 2,200 m/s (+ the closing velocity of the target.)
(Most Modern AP 120mm tank rounds are about 1,600m/s muzzle velocity)

And at high altitude they'd retain most of their punch at a longer ranges.

We can see the tipping of the threats from 1965.

(Number of Soviet nuclear devices threatening the CONUS, per year)


1965 peak of the first ICBM generation
6 R-7 (SS-6)
197 R-16 (SS-7)
23 R-9A (SS-8)

1971 peak of the second ICBM generation
190 R-16 (SS-7)
19 R-9A (SS-8)
278 R-36 (SS-9)
990 UR-100 (SS-11)
40 RT-2 (SS-13)

The ICBM-s were mainly fortified silo based that time.

From 1965, only the naval reconnaissance version of the Tu-95RC (Bear-D) production was continued till 1967.
The existing cruise missile carrier Bears were reaimed against the US NAVY carrier battle groups, planned to attack parallel by several planes, launching salvos...
... (this threat called the Tomcat and the Phoenix system to life).

Once again, thanks for this interesting info!

Don't forget (or downplay) the importance of Canada if such conflict ever happened. Before reaching the USA (with the exception of Alaska), the Soviet "polar" bombers would need to cross Canada which means that the Soviet bombers would need to face the Canadian Air Force (RCAF, later Canadian Force Air Command) before being able to reach their American targets or target cities that you mentioned.
For example in order to reach target cities in the USA such as New York or Washington in the late 60's, the Soviet bombers would have to likely face to following (and considerably well equipped) Canadian Air Force defences/squadrons:



Of course since Canada was and is an ally of the USA and is also part of NORAD and therefore would definitely enter the war/conflict against the USSR siding with the USA, this would likely mean that Canadian cities such as Montreal (which was at that time the most important city in Canada, surpassed by Toronto later on - Take that Montreal! ), Toronto and/or Ottawa would also or likely become a target for the Soviets.

After the refueling capability was introduced (1962), they were expected to arrive from the sea, not over Canada.

CONUS - SAM coverage, 1965.


CONUS - Fighter Interceptor Deployment, 1965.

Well, you have to remember that while airborne refueling capability was introduced in 1962, airborne refueling was a practice still in it's "infancy" at that time which means that the Soviets wouldn't likely have that many airborne tankers or at least as many as needed to refuel the majority of the Strategic bomber force inbound to North America.
Actually, the Soviet Strategic bomber force was rather small (a maximum of around 200 bombers using your numbers) and since most if not all of the airborne tanker aircraft at that time were in fact converted Strategic bombers (the Bison was if I'm not mistaken, the most used aircraft in this role) I doubt that the Soviets would have as many as the needed airborne tankers that could refuel all the Strategic Soviet bombers inbound to attack the USA so that all of these bombers could come from the sea and not from polar area and Canada.
I would say that due to the resources (or the lack of it) and even for the sake of a surprising the enemy (and overwhelming enemy defences) that if such war ever happened, that the some Soviet bombers could indeed come from the sea (refueled in the air) while others (probably a majority or a bigger number) would certainly from Canada.
Some of Soviet bombers attacking the USA could even come from Cuba.

Even today, coming from Canada or at least near the Canadian border to "threaten" the USA seems to be one of the favourite or potential routes for Russia and its Strategic Bomber force, as it can be read here:

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/...-strikes-on-us/

I can fully agree with your assessment.

We can easily calculate the Soviet refueling capability available at those times.
(this topic slightly touched that issue earlier)

Actually the unsuccessful polar bomber, the M-4 (Bison-A) were reused as tanker.


Its production run was:
1954 - 2
1955 - 9
1956 - 20

So not more than 31 tanker were available from '62.

In my assessment, half of the cruise missile carriers could arrive from the sea, the other ~30 could try to clear the way from the pole through Canada, for the 128 bombers trailing the attack.