homepage

SAM defense of the CONUS

Posted By: Hpasp

SAM defense of the CONUS - 02/08/15 04:04 PM

Bit of history for the beginning...

Just 4 years after Hiroshima, Soviet Union detonated its own nuclear bomb, the RDS-1.



Nuclear bombing of the CONtinental US cities looked a realistic possibility within few years but...



... while the bomb was ready, there were absolutely no means for the Soviet Union to deliver it above another continent, so Stalin tentatively selected 1954 as the year, when US should be demolished.



Two design bureau was selected to create the first intercontinental bomber of the Communist world.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 02/08/15 04:39 PM

To deliver a 5t thermonuclear device over the CONtinental US, the proposed "polar" bomber needed 13'000km range, and high subsonic speeds to outrun expected enemy jet fighters, a serious learning from the MiG-15 vs B-29 battles of the Korean war.



Myasishchev proposed a four jet engine bomber with...

- range: 12-13'000km
- speed: 850~900km/h
- flight altitude: 12~14km


As Tupolev did not believed that contemporary Soviet jet engines can reach America, he proposed a turboprop bomber:

- range: 15'000km
- speed: 920~950km/h
- flight altitude: 10~14km


Posted By: Hpasp

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 02/08/15 05:03 PM

The United States launched several programs to protect itself against the expected incoming hundreds of Soviet nuclear bombers.

Early Warning radar lines

Pinetree Line North of the 50th parallel, activated in 1955.


DEW Line (Distant Early Warning Line) 2~300km north of the Arctic Circle.
It become active in 1957.



Mid-Canada Line
Activated in 1958 with low altitude scanning Doppler Radars.


Posted By: Hpasp

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 02/08/15 05:38 PM

USAF had two programs

- GAPA [Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft] (later BOMARC [BOeing and Michigan Aerospace Research Center]) SAM system.
Boeing received a USAF contract in 1949 to develop a pilotless interceptor under project MX-1599. The MX-1599 missile was to be a ramjet-powered, nuclear-armed long-range surface-to-air missile to defend the Continental United States from high-flying bombers. In 1951, the USAF decided to emphasize its point of view that missiles were nothing else than pilotless aircraft by assigning aircraft designators to its missile projects, and anti-aircraft missiles received F-for-Fighter designations. The Bomarc became the F-99.


- the 1954 Ultimate Interceptor, a supersonic piloted fighter armed with (nuclear) AA missiles, and guided by computerized IADS.
This development ultimately leaded to the development of the Convair F-106 Delta Dart in 1959. (five years of delay)


- SAGE (Semi-Automatic Ground Environment)
State of the art IBM AN/FSQ-7 computers processing early warning target acquisition radar data, and guiding BOMARC missiles or manned fighters against expected massive enemy formations.
Reached operational status in 1958.

Posted By: Hpasp

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 02/08/15 06:25 PM

The US ARMY had the responsibility for the GBAD (Ground Based Air Defense) during World War-2.

The SCR-584 (Signal Corps Radio # 584) was the premier US anti-aircraft gun laying radar, developed by the MIT Radiation Laboratory, and fielded from 1943.


The Soviet SON-4/9 Fire Can AAA radar used during the Vietnam War was a direct copy of this system, originally received as a US wartime aid against the Germans.


Its successor the Western Electric M-33 AAFCS (Antiaircraft Fire Control System) was deployed in 1950.


Beside its usual conical scanning target tracking radar...


...this system had a lightweight target acquisition radar, that provided 360 degree area awareness for the gun laying crew.


Project Nike
The inherent inaccuracy of anti-aircraft artillery means that when shells reach their targets they are randomly distributed in space. This distribution is much larger than the lethal radius of the shells, so the chance that any one shell will successfully hit the target is very small. Successful anti-aircraft gunnery therefore requires as many rounds to be fired as possible, increasing the chances that one of the rounds will get a "hit".

During The Blitz, UK gunners fired 49,044 shells in January 1941 for 12 kills, almost 4,100 shells per success.
German gunners with radar support did better, estimating that an average of 2,800 shells were required to down a single Boeing B-17.

Flying faster means that the aircraft passes through the range of a gun more rapidly, reducing the number of rounds a particular gun can fire at that aircraft. Flying at higher altitudes often has a similar effect, as it requires larger shells to reach those altitudes, and this typically results in slower firing rates for a variety of practical reasons.

Aircraft using jet engines roughly double the speed and altitude over piston-powered designs, limiting the number of shells so greatly that the chance of hitting the bomber dropped almost to zero.



The introduction of German jet-powered bombers late in 1944 led the Army Chief of Ordnance issued a requirement for a new guided missile weapon system. The request was passed to Bell Labs, then a world leader in radar, radio control and automated aiming systems.

The Bell team was given the task of attacking bombers flying at 800 km/h or more, at altitudes between 6~18km
Bell reported back on 14 May 1945 that such a development was indeed possible.

They concluded that:
A supersonic rocket missile should be vertically launched under the thrust of a solid-fuel booster which was then to be dropped thence, self-propelled by a liquid-fuel motor, the missile should be guided to a predicted intercept point in space and detonated by remote control commands, these commands should be transmitted by radio signals determined by a ground-based computer associated with radar which would track both the target and the missile in flight.


Posted By: ricnunes

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 02/08/15 07:21 PM

Hi Hpasp,
is this going to be your next SAM simulator project?


By the way, don't forget about Canada! Many/most of these project to defend North America (including Canada) from Soviet bomber threat were in fact joint American and Canadian efforts and not exclusively American. For example the Mid-Canada (radar) line was installed exclusively on Canada while most of the DEW and PINETREE lines were also installed on Canada and these were run by joint Canadian and American personnel.
Actually these joint Canadian and American efforts to defend North America created the well known NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command).
More info on NORAD here:
http://www.norad.mil/AboutNORAD.aspx
and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defense_Command
Posted By: scrim

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 02/08/15 07:29 PM

Keep it up, I love reading about this!
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 02/08/15 08:07 PM

From the historical hindsight it might be easy to dismiss this tension, but during those years this was tough reality...

Posted By: ricnunes

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 02/10/15 03:48 PM

Nice Reading and video too.

Posted By: Hpasp

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 02/14/15 10:30 AM

Myasishchev had several innovative ideas, to maximize his plane the M-4 (Bison-A) effective range.
By selecting the strongest available turbojets (Mikulin AM-3, 78kN thrust, 3.1t weight, 5.38x1.5m size) in the Soviet Union, he could accelerate the maximal take off weight of 184t in a 2500m of runway.
Placing the engines inside of the wing root, excluded the weight of the nacelle.
The bicycle wheel arrangement reduced the number of required undercarriages from three to two, and minimizing the ground clearance saved 5t.
Usage of a new type of Aluminium 95T that was 1.5 times stronger allowed weight reduction by 1.5.
Limiting the plane overload to the absolute minimum of 2g (!!!) and designing a vertically flexible wing reduced its weight by 20%.

All the measures above, resulted an empty weight of 80t.



Beside test ongoing flights, the M-4 was overflown above the western military attaches during the May Day parade of 1954.
Serial production also started parallel, resulting a total production of 32pcs till 1956.



In 1955, the RDS-37D thermonuclear bomb (yield of 3Mt) become available and produced serially.



As it turned out after fielding, the practical maximum range of the plane with one bomb does not exceeded 9500km thus the round trip reaching the USA was impossible.

Myasishchev was sent back to the drawing table, and all M-4 (Bison-A) planes were converted to refuelling tankers.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 02/14/15 11:24 AM

And a similar story from the other side of the pond.

To successfully pursuit an expected high subsonic Soviet nuclear bomber during night, the "1954 Ultimate Interceptor" weapon system had to be IADS guided, missile armed, and capable of close to Mach 2 speeds.

In 1952 become clear, that the on-board Hughes fire control system (processing IADS information) was in severe delay and not to be ready till 1955, while the Wright J67 engine was also unavailable.

It was decided to field an "interim interceptor" with a conventional fire control system, and the weaker and heavier Pratt & Whitney J57 engine.
The fully armed (6 AIM-4 Falcon, and 12 2.75 inch unguided missiles ) Convair F-102A Delta Dagger could reach only 677kts (barely above Mach1).


Far later than originally planned, a total of 889 F-102A Delta Dagger "interim interceptor" was produced and fielded between 1956 and 1958.


The planned "1954 Ultimate Interceptor" was still away.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 02/14/15 02:33 PM

The idea of using turboprop for the polar bomber, based on the Junkers Jumo 022 engine was flatly rejected by the military.
Tupolev escalated his case to Stalin who personally authorized the development.

Preliminary calculations showed that required propeller radius for utilizing 12'000 horse power is 8m so a contra-rotating arrangement was selected, still the plane ground clearance was exceptional.



Testing and serial production started in 1955.

1955 flyby in Tushino.


Tu-95 (Bear-A) with four NK-12 (12'000shp) turboprop, could reach a maximum range of 12'100km.
Production at the Kuibyshev aircraft factory No. 18;
1955 - 4
1956 - 23
1957 - 4

Tu-95M (Bear-A) with the improved NK-12M (15'000shp) turboprop, could reach a maximum range of 13'200km.
1957 - 5
1958 - 14

The total of 50 planes were allocated to two bomber regiments,
- 409th TBAP (heavy bomber regiment) of the 106th TBAD (heavy bomber division) based in Uzin (near Kiev)
- 1223th TBAP (heavy bomber regiment) of the 79th TBAD (heavy bomber division) based in Semipalatinsk (in Kazakhstan)
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 02/14/15 04:52 PM

CIA assessment of Soviet bomber capabilities from 1955
http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0000269429.pdf
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 02/14/15 08:29 PM

In order to complement your data on the subject, specially regarding interceptor (in this case the F-102), here's some info regarding an another very important interceptor of the time, the F-101 Voodoo:

The McDonnell F-101 Voodoo was a supersonic jet fighter which served the United States Air Force (USAF) and the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF). Initially designed by McDonnell Aircraft as a long-range bomber escort (known as a penetration fighter) for the Strategic Air Command (SAC), the Voodoo was instead developed as a nuclear-armed fighter-bomber for the Tactical Air Command (TAC), and as a photo reconnaissance aircraft based on the same airframe. Extensively modified versions were produced as an all-weather interceptor aircraft, serving with the Air Defense Command, later renamed the Aerospace Defense Command (ADC), the Air National Guard, the Royal Canadian Air Force and the unified Canadian Forces after 1968.



(USAF F-101B Voodoo)



(A Canadian CF-101B Voodoo protecting the great white north)




(A Canadian CF-101B Voodoo, firing an AIR-2 Genie nuclear rocket - In case of war this air-to-air unguided rocket would be tipped with a nuclear warhead)



F-101B / CF-101B / EF-101B

In the late 1940s, the Air Force had started a research project into future interceptor aircraft that eventually settled on an advanced specification known as the 1954 interceptor. Contracts for this specification eventually resulted in the selection of the F-102 Delta Dagger, but by 1952 it was becoming clear that none of the parts of the specification other than the airframe would be ready by 1954; the engines, weapons and fire control systems were all going to take too long to get into service. An effort was then started to quickly produce an interim supersonic design to replace the various subsonic interceptors then in service, and the F-101 airframe was selected as a starting point.

Although McDonnell proposed the designation F-109 for the new aircraft (which was to be a substantial departure from the basic Voodoo), the USAF assigned the designation F-101B. It was first deployed into service on January 5, 1959, with the 60th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. The production ended in March 1961. The Voodoo featured a modified cockpit to carry a crew of two, with a larger and more rounded forward fuselage to hold the Hughes MG-13 fire control radar of the F-102. It had data link to the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) system, allowing ground controllers to steer the aircraft towards its targets by making adjustments through the plane's autopilot. The F-101B had more powerful Pratt & Whitney J57-P-55 engines, making it the only Voodoo not using the -13 engines. The new engines featured a substantially longer afterburner than J57-P-13s. To avoid a major redesign, the extended afterburners were simply allowed to extend out of the fuselage by almost 8 ft (2.4 m). The more powerful engines and aerodynamic refinements allowed an increased speed of Mach 1.85.

The F-101B was stripped of the four M39 cannons and carried four AIM-4 Falcon air-to-air missiles instead, arranged two apiece on a rotating pallet in the fuselage weapons bay. The initial load was two GAR-1 (AIM-4A) semi-active radar homing and two GAR-2 (AIM-4B) infrared-guided weapons with one of each carried on each side of the rotating pallet. After the first two missiles were fired, the door turned over to expose the second pair. Standard practice was to fire the weapons in SARH/IR pairs to increase the likelihood of a hit. Late-production models had provision for two 1.7-kiloton MB-1/AIR-2 Genie nuclear rockets on one side of the pallet with IR-guided GAR-2A (AIM-4C) on the other side. "Project Kitty Car" upgraded most earlier F-101Bs to this standard beginning in 1961.

From 1963–66, F-101Bs were upgraded under the Interceptor Improvement Program (IIP; also known as "Project Bold Journey"), with a fire control system enhancement against hostile ECM and an infrared sighting and tracking (IRST) system in the nose in place of the in-flight refueling probe.

The F-101B was made in greater numbers than the F-101A and C, with a total of 479 being delivered by the end of production in 1961. Most of these were delivered to the Air Defense Command (ADC) beginning in January 1959. The only foreign customer for the F-101B was Canada.

The F-101B was withdrawn from ADC service from 1969 to 1972, with many surviving USAF aircraft transferred to the Air National Guard (replacing F-102s), serving until 1982. The last Voodoo in US service (F-101B-105-MC 58-300) was finally retired by the 2nd Fighter Interceptor Training Squadron at Tyndall AFB in Florida on 21 September 1982.


The CF-101B in Canadian service:

Origins

After the cancellation of the CF-105 Arrow program in February 1959, George Pearkes, the Canadian Minister of National Defence officially maintained that the existing Avro CF-100 interceptors and the Bomarc missiles that had been ordered in September 1958 would be adequate for Canada’s air defense needs. Unofficially, it was recognized that there was still a bomber threat, and discussions had been underway since before the formal conclusion of the Avro Arrow program concerning the RCAF acquiring an "off-the-shelf" interceptor from the United States.

The USAF indicated that it was prepared to make 56 F-101B interceptors and 10 F-101F trainers available (by employing Convair F-102 Delta Daggers in less demanding NORAD sectors) for Canadian purchase. The deal was delayed for over a year by negotiations over acquisition costs and offsets, as well as debate within the Diefenbaker government about Canada adopting nuclear weapons systems, which had been agreed to, in principle, in 1958. The financial arrangements were sorted out by Canada taking over the staffing and funding of 11 Pinetree Line radar stations within Canada that had formerly been operated and funded by the USAF. A detailed agreement signed in June 1961 covered the transfer of the aircraft, meant to equip five front-line squadrons (replacing nine CF-100 squadrons) and an Operational Training Unit (OTU).


Nuclear weapons controversy in Canada

The issue of nuclear weapons in Canada had not been resolved in June 1961, thus the CF-101s was armed only with their secondary AIM-4D Falcon missiles. In April 1963, the issue led to the collapse of the Diefenbaker government. The succeeding Pearson government signed an agreement with the United States concerning nuclear arms for Canada on 16 August 1963. The agreement did not actually state that Canada was acquiring nuclear weapons; the Canadian government usually refused to confirm or deny that there were any nuclear arms in Canada. The agreement specifically stated that the AIR-2A Genie rockets were the property of the United States and would only be released to Canada for actual use with the joint agreement of Canada and the United States through NORAD. The stringent training requirements meant that it took until June 1965 for the Genies to become operational in Canada. The Genies were kept in the custody of the USAF, with detachments of the 425th Munitions Support Squadron located at each of the Canadian bases.


Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_F-101_Voodoo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_CF-101_Voodoo



As a side note and by reading above, the F-101B and CF-101B (and likely other interceptors such as the F-102) could be controlled and steered towards the targets by ground controllers using data-link connected from the aircraft's autopilot to the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) system, the same system used for the BOMARC SAM system, if I'm not mistaken. So I would like to suggest that if we ever have such scenario in SAM simulator that we could not only control BOMARC SAMs but interceptors such as the F-101B/CF-101B as well (this would be a change from controlling Surface-to-Air missiles only within the simulator). How about this for a future idea for SAM simulator?
Posted By: PN79

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 02/15/15 11:41 AM

Excellent, thanks for it.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 02/15/15 02:09 PM

Thanks for your comments!
As it seems, there were actually more F-101B squadrons fielded, than the "ultimate" F-106A.


Posted By: Hpasp

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 02/19/15 02:56 PM

Myasishchev went back to the drawing table for a second try.


The new Dobrynin VD-7 engine had greater thrust (115kN vs 78kN of the Mikulin AM-3) that allowed increasing of the take off weight to 203t (vs 184t of the M4).
They were also lighter (2,4t vs 3,1t of the Mikulin AM-3), and by replacing the landing gear with smaller ones the total dry weight was reduced by 6,5t.

The extra fuel on-board (inside the enlarged wings), and the lower fuel consumption (0.75 vs 0.9) made the practical maximum range of the plane with one bomb 12'000km, thus the round trip reaching the USA was now possible.



3M* (Bison-B) production;
1956 - 15
1957 - 26
1958 - 15
1959 - 20
1960 - 9

The total of 85 planes were allocated to four bomber regiments,
- 1096th TBAP (heavy bomber regiment) of the 201th TBAD (heavy bomber division) based in Engels (Saratov Oblast)
- 1230th TBAP (heavy bomber regiment) of the 201th TBAD (heavy bomber division) based in Engels (Saratov Oblast)
- 40th TBAP (heavy bomber regiment) of the 73rd TBAD (heavy bomber division) based in Ukrainka (Amur Oblast)
- 79th TBAP (heavy bomber regiment) of the 73rd TBAD (heavy bomber division) based in Ukrainka (Amur Oblast)

*A similarly interesting mix-up of product/design name happened here as with the Bear.
product - design name - (western name)
M-4 - 2M - (Bison-A)
M-6 - 3M - (Bison-B)
Tu-20 - design.95 - (Bear)
As the testing and production of these designs were done parallel, the military used the design name as it was printed on the documentation.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 02/19/15 06:56 PM

Hang on, there is just one MiG design left, that could realistically reached CONUS during the 1955-65 time-frame...


Posted By: ricnunes

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 02/22/15 03:27 PM

Glad you like my entry on the F-101B/CF-101B. smile


Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Hang on, there is just one MiG design left, that could realistically reached CONUS during the 1955-65 time-frame...




You got me curious on that one!

What Mig design are you referring to?

Looking at the photo that aircraft looks like a Mig-21 to me, however the Mig-21 cannot be the aircraft you're referring to since the Mig-21 doesn't have the range for such mission (the Mig-21 was a short range interceptor).
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 02/22/15 03:59 PM

While I'm waiting for Hpasp's unveiling of the "mysterious" Mig design and following the trend of the previous F-101B entry, I would like to add to the subject an another entry, this one is a purely Canadian designed aircraft interceptor (and the only Canadian designed fighter jet aircraft to be massed produced), the Avro Canada CF-100 Canuck:

Before the introduction of the CF-101B in the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF), the CF-100 was Canada's main interceptor and one of the most important interceptors over North America under NORAD command in the 1950's.




The Avro Canada CF-100 Canuck (affectionately known as the "Clunk") was a Canadian jet interceptor/fighter serving during the Cold War both in NATO bases in Europe and as part of NORAD. The CF-100 was the only Canadian-designed fighter to enter mass production, serving primarily with the RCAF/CAF and in small numbers in Belgium. For its day, the CF-100 featured a short takeoff run and high climb rate, making it well suited to its role as an interceptor.


Design, development and production

In the early 1950s, Canada needed an all-weather interceptor (fighter) able to patrol the vast areas of Canada's north and operate in all weather conditions. The two-seat fighter crewed by a pilot and navigator was designed with two powerful engines and an advanced radar and fire control system housed in its nose that enabled it to fly in all-weather or night conditions.

Design of the XC-100 to meet a Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) specification for an all-weather fighter was initiated at Avro Canada in October 1946. Chief Engineer Edgar Atkin's work on the CF-100 was subsequently passed to John Frost (formerly of de Havilland) who, along with Avro's Chief Aerodynamacist Jim Chamberlin, reworked the original fuselage design. The CF-100 Mark 1 prototype, "18101," emerged from the factory, painted gloss black overall with white lightning bolts running down the fuselage and engines. The CF-100 prototype flew its maiden flight on 19 January 1950 with Gloster Aircraft Company Chief Test Pilot Squadron Leader Bill Waterton at the controls. Waterton was on loan from the Gloster firm, another member of the Hawker Siddeley Group, and chosen because of his experience with jet aircraft development, as one of the "highest-time" pilots in the world. The Mark 1 was powered by two Avon RA 3 turbojets with 28.9 kN (2,950 kgp / 6,500 lbf) thrust each.

The second prototype, 18102, was also powered by Rolls-Royce Avons, although subsequent pre-production and production series aircraft used the Avro Orenda turbojet. Five pre-production Mk 2 test aircraft were produced (18103-18107) all fitted with the Orenda 2 jet engines; one was fitted with dual controls and designated a Mk 2T trainer. The first production version, designated Mk 3, incorporated the APG-33 radar and was armed with eight .50 caliber (12.7 mm) machine guns. The Mk 3CT and Mk 3DT were again dual control versions supplied to operational training units.



(No. 423 Squadron Mk 4B CF-100s, 1962. This squadron was based in Grostenquin, France)


In September 1950, the RCAF ordered 124 examples of the Mk 3 version, the first of these entering service in 1953. These were armed with eight .50-caliber machine guns. The definitive rocket-armed Mk 4A version was based on the prototype Mk 4 (a modified Mk 3) first flying on 11 October 1952. The nose housed the much larger APG-40 radar with wingtip pods each containing up to 29 Mighty Mouse FFAR (folding fin aerial rockets) in addition to the guns. As the last 54 of an order for the Mk 3 were changed into the Mk 4 in 1954, total orders for the Mk.4 rose to 510. The Mk 4B version had more powerful Orenda 11s.

Five versions, or "marks", were produced, ending, from 1955 onwards, with the high-altitude Mk 5 that featured a 1.06m (3 ft. 6 in.) extended wingtip and enlarged tailplane, along with removal of the machine guns. The proposed Mk 6 was to have mounted Sparrow II missiles and been powered by afterburning Orenda 11IR engines in an effort to provide an "interim" fighter prior to the introduction of the Avro CF-105 Arrow. A projected transonic swept-wing CF-103 was built in mock-up form in 1951, but was considered obsolescent even before the CF-100's demonstrated ability to exceed the speed of sound in a dive. On 18 December 1952, S/L Janusz Żurakowski, the Avro company chief development test pilot, took the CF-100 Mk 4 prototype to Mach 1.0 in a dive from 30,000 ft. being the first straight-winged jet aircraft to achieve controlled supersonic flight.


Operational history

The Canuck was affectionately known in the RCAF as the "Clunk" because of the noise the front landing gear made as it retracted into its well after takeoff. Its less-attractive nickname was the "Lead Sled", a reference to its heavy controls and general lack of maneuverability, a nickname it shared with a number of other 1950s aircraft. Others included CF-Zero, the Zilch, the Beast, all references to an aircraft many pilots considered less glamorous than RCAF day fighters like the Canadair Sabre.

The aircraft operated under the US/Canadian North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) to protect North American airspace from Soviet intruders such as nuclear-armed bombers. Additionally, as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), four Canuck squadrons were based in Europe with 1 Air Division from 1956–1962, and were for some time the only NATO fighters capable of operating in zero visibility and poor weather conditions.

When the Korean War started, the USAF was in urgent need of a jet-propelled, all-weather, interdiction/surveillance aircraft. The urgency was so great that the USAF was willing to consider two foreign designs: the CF-100 and the English Electric Canberra. The CF-100 was rejected because of insufficient range and payload. The English Electric design was selected and developed into the Martin B-57 Canberra.

The CF-100 served with nine RCAF squadrons at its peak in the mid-1950s. Four of these squadrons were deployed to Europe from late 1956–1962 under the NIMBLE BAT ferry program, replacing some NATO RCAF squadrons equipped with Canadair Sabre day fighters to provide all-weather defense against Soviet intruders. Canucks flying at home retained natural metal finish, but those flying overseas were given a British-style disruptive camouflage scheme - dark sea gray and green on top, light sea gray on the bottom.

During his Avro Canada years, the Chief Development Pilot, S/L Żurakowski, continued to fly as an aerobatic display pilot, with spectacular results, especially at the 1955 Farnborough Airshow where he displayed the CF-100 in a "falling-leaf." He was acclaimed again as the "Great Żura" by many aviation and industry observers who could not believe a large, all-weather fighter could be put through its paces so spectacularly. His performance led to Belgium purchasing the CF-100.

In its lifetime, 692 CF-100s of different variants were produced, including 53 aircraft delivered to the Belgian Air Force. Although originally designed for only 2,000 hours, it was found that the Canuck's airframe could serve for over 20,000 hours before retirement. Consequently, though it was replaced in its front line role by the CF-101 Voodoo, the Canuck served with 414 Squadron of the Canadian Forces at CFB North Bay, Ontario, until 1981, in reconnaissance, training and electronic warfare roles. After the CF-100 was retired, a number of aircraft still remain across Canada (and elsewhere) as static displays.

Its planned successor, the CF-105 Arrow along with the sophisticated Orenda Iroquois engine, both Canadian-designed, were cancelled in 1959 in a controversial decision by the Canadian government.


Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-100_Canuck


Here a video about the CF-100 which shows (specially after minute 7:00) how the rocket pod system and the aircraft's radar worked:
Posted By: Stratos

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 02/22/15 07:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Hang on, there is just one MiG design left, that could realistically reached CONUS during the 1955-65 time-frame...




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

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 02/23/15 01:41 PM

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".
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 02/24/15 08:51 PM

Originally Posted By: Stratos
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Hang on, there is just one MiG design left, that could realistically reached CONUS during the 1955-65 time-frame...




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


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.
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 02/24/15 09:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
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".


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.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 02/28/15 11:42 AM

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)
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 03/08/15 10:17 AM

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.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 03/08/15 10:48 AM

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)




Posted By: Hpasp

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 03/08/15 12:17 PM

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.
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 03/08/15 12:56 PM

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.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 03/08/15 02:57 PM

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
Posted By: Comrade_Hedgehog

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 03/09/15 10:52 AM

This is some good info Hpasp, keep it up. smile

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

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 03/09/15 03:28 PM

Originally Posted By: ricnunes
Originally Posted By: Stratos
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Hang on, there is just one MiG design left, that could realistically reached CONUS during the 1955-65 time-frame...




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


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.


I think it's a interceptor, is Hsaps who should clarify what he tried to tell us.
Posted By: piston79

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 03/09/15 06:46 PM



Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 03/10/15 10:57 AM

piston79: great, where did you find it?
Posted By: Comrade_Hedgehog

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 03/10/15 10:57 AM

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.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 03/11/15 03:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Comrade_Hedgehog
This is some good info Hpasp, keep it up. smile

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


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).





Posted By: ricnunes

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 03/12/15 10:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
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


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! biggrin ), Toronto and/or Ottawa would also or likely become a target for the Soviets.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 03/13/15 08:21 PM

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.

Posted By: ricnunes

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 03/14/15 01:19 PM

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



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/
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 03/14/15 03:04 PM

Originally Posted By: ricnunes
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
After the refueling capability was introduced (1962), they were expected to arrive from the sea, not over Canada.



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 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.
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 03/14/15 09:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
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.


Yes, your assessment on the Soviet airborne refueling capabilities and numbers certainly looks very realistic to me and I fully agree with it.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 03/20/15 06:05 PM

Still around...
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 03/21/15 07:50 PM

Yeap, the Tu-95 Bear is definitely one of the world's military aircraft classics of all times!

Personally I'm not a big fan of Soviet/Russian military aircraft save for a few exceptions and the Tu-95 Bear is definitely one of those exceptions!
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 07/29/15 03:16 PM

Posted By: Hpasp

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 07/30/15 11:14 AM

Good docs on BOMARC...

http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/IM-99A_BOMARC_CS_-_15_June_1959.pdf
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/IM-99A_BOMARC_SAC_-_8_May_1958.pdf
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/CIM-10B_BOMARC_CS_-_June_1972.pdf
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 07/31/15 05:42 PM

Interesting docs. Thanks for sharing!
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 08/06/16 11:19 AM

Really nice pics biggrin

Posted By: KJakker

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 08/07/16 10:26 PM

This was originally one post but I thought I would break it down into four post.

//----------Nike----------//



Surface to Air Missiles: The Nike Hercules Story 1960 US Army

"30-minute public affairs film produced by the Army in 1960 to educate the public on the Nike Hercules air defense system."



Nike Hercules & Nike X Missiles in Action - Defense Testing NORAD - 1970s

US Army Air Defense Command - ARADCOM: The Inner Ring - Army Air Defense Command uses Nike Hercules and other missiles in defense measures. Nike X missile and fighter interceptors 1970s. Canadian defense from USSR.



Nike Missile Bases - A Forgotten Tale of the Puente Hills

During the Cold War, it was a very different time in this country. It was a time of national paranoia and fear. In the Los Angeles area, this county's military was looking to protect it, and the west coast. from Russian bomber strikes. Two of these bases were with-in the borders of the old Rancho La Puente... and we were thankful.
Posted By: KJakker

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 08/07/16 10:27 PM

Post number two.

//----------Bomarc----------//



The second-generation solid propellant-fueled Bomarc B is highlighted in this footage taken from the rocket.aero DVD "Bomarc: IM-99 Sentinel." For more information, visit: www.rocket.aero



Bomarc missile launch operations are highlighted in this footage taken from the rocket.aero DVD "Bomarc: IM-99 Sentinel." For more information, visit: www.rocket.aero



A dramatic Bomarc launch failure is highlighted in this footage taken from the rocket.aero DVD "Bomarc: IM-99 Sentinel." For more information, visit: www.rocket.aero



Military produced scenario, Armored Sky Bomarc Missile Video

//-----F-106-Vs-BOMARC Target-----//



F-106 shot down a BOMARC missile in a test with 2,000 mph closure rate
Posted By: KJakker

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 08/07/16 10:29 PM

Third post.

//----------SAGE----------//

//-----Archival Films-----//



Click to reveal.. (Air Defence 1950s US military film)
Air Defence 1950s US military film

From Paul Lashmar archive.
www.paullashmar.com
paul.lashmar1@btinternet.com
All material from U.S. Public Domain sources. Broadcast standard beta tapes available for hire.

Tape 140 part one
10:01:58 "Air Defence" - Walter Cronkite
10:02:21 Combat Operations Center
10:02:56 Telex machine
10:03:03 Plotting board and the plotter
10:04:22 "Air Defence Readiness" sign goes on
10:04:29 Interceptors scramble
10:05:16 "Seconds for Survival" - NORAD and early warning radar, etc
10:06:26 SAGE Combat Center
10:06:48 Jet interceptors followed by Atlas launch
10:07:18 National Warning System - and civil defence
10:07:48 Crowds in street
10:08:03 Presenter - ICBMs
10:08:35 SAM - Nike Zeus
10:08:59 Presenter - time is of the essence! + what if?
10:09:40 US streets
10:1 0:00 Enemy attack - plotting board
10:10:09 Radar .
10:10:25 Telex
10:1 0:44 Siren and interceptors scramble
10:11:06 B47s in flight
10:11:12 Interceptors scramble
10:11:36 SAMs rise out of silos
10:11:45 "This is an air raid warning!" - people running into shelters + SAMs
10:1 2:53 The White House - decision is made to strike back
10:13:02 Siren and SAC scramble - AFB in snow + AFB in desert
10:13:22 B47 take off followed by B52 take off
10:13:45 Command Center - "Attention missile sites. Fire on designated targets."
10:13:49 Telephone operator gives order
10:1 3:51 Missile keys turned and buttons pressed
10:13:55 ICBMs launch
10:14:30 SAMs launch and hit planes
10:15:34 Presenter




Click to reveal.. (IBM On Guard! The Semi-Automatic Ground Environment - 1956 Educational Film - S88TV1)

IBM On Guard! The Semi-Automatic Ground Environment - 1956 Educational Film - S88TV1

IBM Corporation, Military Products Division, detail Innovations in computer technology for use as weapons in the Cold War.

The Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) was an operator environment for the automated air defense (AD) of North America and by extension, the name of the network of computer systems providing the ground environment for the larger air defense system with buildings, radars, and defense aircraft. SAGE Direction Centers (DC) in large "cube" buildings provided radar netting for Air Defense Sectors that included remote radar stations manned by SAGE radar squadrons of the USAF which operated several radar types for searching/detecting, height finding and for Bomarc missiles, automatic tracking. Each SAGE DC provided data to a Combat Center for "supervision of the several sectors within the division" ("each combat center [had] the capability to coordinate defense for the whole nation").

SAGE used core memory as in the Whirlwind I, Cathode ray tube based real-time user interface as in the British CDS, telephone modem communications developed by the AFCRC, and over 100 long range radar stations as with the preceding Permanent System radar stations.




Click to reveal.. (SAGE SYSTEM TRAINING PROGRAM COLD WAR EARLY WARNING SYSTEM 78864)
SAGE SYSTEM TRAINING PROGRAM COLD WAR EARLY WARNING SYSTEM 78864]

This film shows the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment or SAGE, a system of large computers and associated networking equipment that coordinated data from many radar sites and processed it to produce a single unified image of the airspace over a wide area. SAGE directed and controlled the NORAD response to a Soviet air attack, operating in this role from the late 1950s into the 1980s.

The processing power behind SAGE was supplied by the largest computer ever built, the AN/FSQ-7. Each SAGE Direction Center (DC) housed an FSQ-7 which occupied an entire floor, approximately 22,000 square feet, of the massive concrete blockhouse, not including supporting equipment. The upper two floors contained offices, operator stations, and a single two-story radar display visible to most of the DC's personnel. Information was fed to the DC's from a network of radar stations as well as readiness information from various defence sites. The computers, based on the raw radar data, developed "tracks" for the reported targets, and automatically calculated which defences were within range. Subsets of the data were then sent to the many operator consoles, where the operators used light guns to select targets onscreen for further information, select one of the available defences, and issue commands to attack. These commands would then be automatically sent to the defence site via teleprinter. Connecting the various sites was an enormous network of telephones, modems and teleprinters.

SAGE became operational in the late 1950s and early 1960s at a combined cost of billions of dollars. It was noted that the deployment cost more than the Manhattan Project, which it was, in a way, defending against. SAGE was the backbone of NORAD's air defence system into the 1980s.

The film begins with the headquarters New York air defense sector. At mark 2:50, they control a flight interception for its identification. This air defense system is also designed as a weapon during war to counter mass attacks. It is use to provide training of air force crews which in turns develop their potentials. It enables them to interact swiftly and successfully enables them to interact swiftly and successfully under stress. At mark 4:08, they developed a simulation training system. A magnetic tape is seen at 7:52. Information on the tape is also converted into punch cards. We have SSDP problem tapes prepared to the sage system and is been processed at mark 9:40. At mark 12:00, we have the weapon direction room and their communication network.

At mark 13:20, we have messages been sent through simulations and received automatically by a teletype machine in the manual data room which is then transferred to a punch card and from punch card, the information is been fed into the computer by a manual data supervisor as seen at mark 14:25. The simulator is handled by a weapon director simulator at mark 17:30.
The capabilities of any aircraft weapon system are included in sage sdp exercises at mark 18:00. At mark19:20, we have the identification room and how they relay messages through the system. At mark 20:00, we have the identification room tracking an unknown track. Preliminary scrambling instructions for the interception are punched into the private council at mark 20:55.

We have messages on the lima papa 01 (LP01) been relayed through the system, its location and time to engage. At mark 23:50, we see the end of a complete interception as LP01 returns to base guided home by the interception director. Every details of this interception is been recorded in a tape. At mark 24:15, we have a debriefing to meet the needs of the group. They evaluate each individual’s performance, initiations and monitoring. Each individual made a report on his initiation at mark 27:05. The weapon operation group also holds their meeting outside the debriefing room at mark 27:35. It helps the group find solutions to the problems which roll up in the exercise. The director asks them to get their reports in so special actions will be taken to help in their efficiency. At mark 29:23, the subsystem representatives gather to discuss the exercise as it affected the entire defense group. At mark 31:35, we have them discussing on new features that could be added to the training system and so the training program of the SAGE system continues.

This film is part of the Periscope Film LLC archive, one of the largest historic military, transportation, and aviation stock footage collections in the USA. Entirely film backed, this material is available for licensing in 24p HD and 2k. For more information visit http://www.PeriscopeFilm.com




Click to reveal.. (Cold War Computing: The SAGE System (In Your Defense))
Cold War Computing: The SAGE System (In Your Defense)

The SAGE (Semi-Automatic Ground Environment) System, was designed and built in the 1950s to defend against the threat of Soviet bombers attacking the continental United States. The system was much influenced by the design of MIT's Whirlwind II computer system (which was never completed). IBM designed and built the AN/FSQ-7 computer, the heart of the SAGE program, with companies such as Western Electric (who produced In Your Defense), The Mitre Corporation and System Development Corporation were also major contractors on the project.

There were more than twenty SAGE installations located across North America linking hundreds of radar stations, Air Force fighter wings, and missle defense sites in the first large-scale computer communications network. The SAGE network was decentralized and would allow a unit to continue operation even if other sites were disabled. As the Soviet attack threat shifted from long-range bombers to nuclear missles in the 1960's, the SAGE system became less strategic. However, parts of the system continued operation into the early 1980's.

This film explains the national security threats of the 1950's and 60's that SAGE was built to defend against, shows the SAGE computer and network in operation and simulates how SAGE would react to an attack on the United States.

Catalog Number: 102651595




IBM Sage Computer Ad, 1960

How we used to shoot down missiles, with punch cards and light wands.

//-----Documentary, Lectures, and Museums.



SAGE (Semi-Automatic Ground Environment)

The Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) was an automated control system for tracking and intercepting enemy bomber aircraft used by NORAD from the late 1950s into the 1980s. In later versions, the system could automatically direct aircraft to an interception by sending instructions directly to the aircraft's autopilot.



SAGE Computer Based Air Defense

Bay Area Computer History Perspectives series
Transfer from VHS.



Click to reveal.. (Vigilance and Vacuum Tubes: The Sage System, 1956-1963)
Vigilance and Vacuum Tubes: The Sage System, 1956-1963

Recorded: Tuesday, May 19, 1998
Posted: Aug 27, 2013
Location: The Computer Museum History Center, Building 126, Moffett Field, Mountain View, CA

In 1963, the last of 22 SAGE command centers was completed by contractors IBM, Western Electric, The RAND Corporation, and Burroughs. At a cost of $8 billion (1964 dollars), this vastly complex technological system, an outgrowth of MIT Lincoln Labs' Whirlwind II computer, represented the state of the art in strategic doctrine and computer systems design. Each one of the 22 SAGE command centers used over 49,000 vacuum tubes, weighed 250 tons, and consumed 3,000,000 watts of power.

The SAGE system linked these command centers into a technopolitical "shield" against Soviet strategic bomber attack. From a stark social context of high Cold War tensions emerged impressive technical advances in hardware and software systems design, real-time control, and air traffic monitoring.

Advances such as the light gun, modems, duplex CPUs, multiprocessing, A/D and D/A conversion techniques, as well as networking arose as ancillary technologies of SAGE development. But did SAGE really work as advertised? Should we care? This lecture reflects on these questions, SAGE's context, and its technical spinoffs.

The lecture takes place in front of 400 square feet of actual SAGE hardware, including Weapons Director and Intercept Technician consoles! This equipment is from the last functioning SAGE center in North Bay, Ontario (Canada), decommissioned in 1982. The USAF SAGE Film "In Your Defense" will also be shown. "I like Ike" buttons optional.

The Speakers:
This lecture's speakers represent a variety of perspectives, from the history of technology, to hardware and software systems engineering:

Les Earnest: Senior Research Scientist Emeritus, Stanford University, Project Engineer and System Designer, SAGE system hardware. Founding President, Imagen Corporation; former Associate Chairman, Stanford University Computer Science Department; Executive Officer, Stanford AI Lab; Department Head, Information Systems Dept, MITRE Corporation; Member, Technical Staff, MIT Lincoln Laboratory... and inventor of the original (DEC-10/20) FINGER program!

James Wong: Computer Systems Engineer, Burroughs Corporation; Unisys Corporation; Project Engineer on SAGE system software for The RAND Corporation 1955-1963; Team Leader, System Development Corporation (SDC), Lincoln Laboratory, SAGE and Project "465-L." Mathematician and programmer for the IBM CPC, 701, and RAND Johnniac. Wong is retired and currently volunteers as an instructor in Mathematics with the Learning Disabled Program at Foothill College.

Paul Edwards: Senior Research Scholar and Lecturer, Program in Science, Technology & Society, Stanford University; author of "The Closed World: Computers and the Politics of Discourse in Cold War America." Edwards has also authored dozens of articles on the history of computing and has held visiting professorships at Stanford, Cornell, the University of Michigan and UC - Santa Cruz. His next book is entitled: "The World in a Machine: Computer Models, Data Networks, and Global Atmospheric Politics." Edwards will be making a 30-minute presentation.

This talk was sponsored by The Computer Museum History Center and Sun Microsystems.




Click to reveal.. (Amazing early Air Defense control computer from the Cold War)
Amazing early Air Defense control computer from the Cold War

http://www.tiltul.com Amazing early Air defense control computer from the Cold War - SAGE
SAGE (Semi-Automatic Ground Environment) air defense system, became operational in 1958
The Computer History Museum Tour 11




Click to reveal.. (USAF - IBM SAGE air defense floor plan - Air Defense History)
USAF - IBM SAGE air defense floor plan -Air Defense History
Full Playlist: Computer History Museum -2013 http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3bE22JWm1VmzUvHPqlRq93Zg19uNztm7

TilTul http://tiltul.com LinksYouWantToRemember
CIMG5955 SAGE air defence floor plan
Posted By: KJakker

Re: SAM defense of the CONUS - 08/07/16 10:35 PM

Fourth and last post for today.

//----------North Bay Canada Air Defence Videos----------//

//-----NORAD - North America Air Defense Playlist-----//

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLADE9B4886BC142AB

Videos from the Canadian Forces Museum of Aerospace Defence (CFMAD) at North Bay, Ontario Canada.



Click to reveal.. (NORAD Radars deployment in Canada & Alaska. AeroSpaceDefence.ca North Bay -1)
North America Air Defense - NORAD Radar stations deployment in Canada. & Alaska. AeroSpaceDefence.ca North Bay-1
Map of Pine Tree Line, Mid Canada Line, Distant Early Warning Line (DEW Line).
Canadian Forces Museum of Aerospace Defence (CFMAD) at North Bay, Ontario Canada http://www.aerospacedefence.ca/
Full Playlist: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLADE9B4886BC142AB&feature=plcp
See more on NORAD Radars
http://www.radomes.org/museum/equip.php
http://www.radomes.org/museum/equip/radarequip.php?link=fps-19.html
Primary Search Radar for DEW-Line sites in Canada and Alaska was the AN/FPS-19, a high-power L-Band search radar
http://www.radomes.org/museum/equip/radarequip.php?link=fps-23.html
AN/FPS-23 DEW Line Radar

See more:
NORAD - Super Structures
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYRPMOPeuqk
NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZaR5aSbUrM&NR=1
DEWLine sites http://www.lswilson.ca/dewline.htm

The NORTH WARNING SYSTEM (NWS)
http://www.lswilson.ca/page4.htm
The North Warning System (Canadian Portion) is a series of long and short range radar sites located in the Canadian high arctic stretching from the Alaska/Yukon border eastward following along the coastline to southern Labrador. Consisting of 11 Long Range Radar sites, 36 "gap filler" Short Range Radar sites and 5 Logistics Support sites (2 of which are co-located with Long Range sites), the North Warning System replaced the aging Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line that was constructed in the early 1950's. The North Warning System became operational in 1987/88. The following map depicts the approximate site locations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Warning_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/FPS-117
AN/FPS-124 Unattended Radar SEEK FROST North Warning System

United States Air Force Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_Missile_Early_Warning_System#cite_note-Clear-1
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/track/pavepaws.htm

Arctic Mission: A Report on DEW Line Activities (Complete)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMZl6Xlm6ak
TilTul http://tiltul.com LinksYouWantToRemember
CIMG1033.AVI




Click to reveal.. (NORAD Underground SAGE Operations Center RCAF-USAF AeroSpaceDefence.ca North Bay- 2)
North America Air Defense -NORAD Underground SAGE Operations Center RCAF-USAF AeroSpaceDefence.ca North Bay- 2
Full Playlist: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLADE9B4886BC142AB
SAGE - Semi Automatic Ground Environment, Cold war era air defense computer system
Canadian Forces Museum of Aerospace Defence (CFMAD) at North Bay, Ontario Canada http://www.aerospacedefence.ca/

See more on NORAD Radars
http://www.radomes.org/museum/equip.php
http://www.radomes.org/museum/equip/radarequip.php?link=fps-19.html
Primary Search Radar for DEW-Line sites in Canada and Alaska was the AN/FPS-19, a high-power L-Band search radar
http://www.radomes.org/museum/equip/radarequip.php?link=fps-23.html
AN/FPS-23 DEW Line Radar

TilTul http://tiltul.com LinksYouWantToRemember
CIMG1034.AVI




Click to reveal.. (ROCC / AWACS Digital Information Link (RADIL) AeroSpaceDefence.ca North Bay- 3)
ROCC / AWACS Digital Information Link (RADIL) AeroSpaceDefence.ca North Bay- 3
Full Playlist: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLADE9B4886BC142AB

Canadian Forces Museum of Aerospace Defence (CFMAD) at North Bay, Ontario Canada http://www.aerospacedefence.ca/

TilTul http://tiltul.com LinksYouWantToRemember
CIMG1036.AVI




Click to reveal.. (Canada's NORAD Underground Complex (North America Air Defense) AeroSpaceDefence.ca North Bay- 4)
Canada's NORAD Underground Complex (North America Air Defense) AeroSpaceDefence.ca North Bay- 4
Full Playlist: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLADE9B4886BC142AB

Canadian Forces Museum of Aerospace Defence (CFMAD) at North Bay, Ontario Canada http://www.aerospacedefence.ca/

See more:
NORAD - Super Structures
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYRPMOPeuqk

NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZaR5aSbUrM&NR=1
Full Playlist: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLADE9B4886BC142AB&feature=plcp
TilTul http://tiltul.com LinksYouWantToRemember
CIMG1084.AVI




Click to reveal.. (BOMARC Nuclear Missiles Interceptors deployment near NORAD at North Bay and La Macaza Canada)
BOMARC CIM-10B Nuclear Missiles Interceptors deployment near NORAD at North Bay and La Macaza Canada
Canada's MORAD North America Air Defense AeroSpaceDefence.ca North Bay- 5
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLADE9B4886BC142AB

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIM-10_Bomarc
Canadian Forces Museum of Aerospace Defence (CFMAD) at North Bay, Ontario Canada http://www.aerospacedefence.ca/

TilTul http://tiltul.com LinksYouWantToRemember
IMG1059.AVI




Click to reveal.. (AN/FPS-6B Height Finder Radar Antenna, used at NORAD PineTree line. Park at North Bay Ontario Canada.)
AN/FPS-6B Height Finder Radar Antenna, used at NORAD PineTree line. Park at North Bay Ontario Canada
Full Playlist: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLADE9B4886BC142AB

Most were in service from 1950s to end of 1980s
See: The PineTree Radar Line Sites Information
http://www.pinetreeline.ca/locations/sites.html

Un-Identified Radars
1.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLHE8JSkqi8
Multiple Horizontal horns Radar - Please Identify it!

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYT1OGa-m7Q
Early 3D Radar - Who can Identify it?

TilTul http://tiltul.com LinksYouWantToRemember
CIMG1085 FPS-6B Height Finder Radar.AVI




Click to reveal.. (AN/FPS-508 Radar Antenna used in NORAD PineTree line. Park at North Bay Ontario Canada.)
AN/FPS-508 Radar Antenna used in NORAD PineTree line. Park at North Bay Ontario Canada.
Most were in service from 1950s to end of 1980s
See: The PineTree Radar Line Sites Information
http://www.pinetreeline.ca/locations/sites.html

"The AN/FPS-508 antenna is a parabolic reflector rotating 360 degrees continuously at a rate of five revolutions per minute. It could detect aircraft up to 100,000 feet in elevation at ranges in excess of 200 miles. Used in conjunction with a height finder antenna, it created a three dimensional picture of altitude, azimuth and range of aircraft within the coverage area. These sensors contributed valued data to the surveillance, identification and aircraft intercept control process of North American Air Defense (NORAD) ground environment air defense mission."
Full Playlist: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLADE9B4886BC142AB

http://www.lswilson.ca/FPS508-3.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFB_North_Bay

TilTul http://tiltul.com LinksYouWantToRemember
CIMG1069 AN FPS-508.AVI




Click to reveal.. (CF-101 Voodoo, AN/FPS-508, AN/FPS-6B Height Finder Radar Antenna. Park at North Bay Ontario Canada...)
CF-101 Voodoo, AN/FPS-508 Radar Antenna used on NORAD PineTree line at North Bay Ontario Canada
AN/FPS-6B Height Finder Radar Antenna, used at NORAD PineTree line. Park at North Bay Ontario Canada
Full Playlist: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLADE9B4886BC142AB

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_CF-101_Voodoo
Armed by nuclear AIR-2A Genie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie
AIM-4 Falcon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-4_Falcon

TilTul http://tiltul.com LinksYouWantToRemember
© 2024 SimHQ Forums