Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Question: Nuclear Missions

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Typhoon1244

Member in Good Standing
Joined
Jul 29, 2002
Posts
3,078
I've been thinking lately about the mission that SAC was (thankfully) never asked to carry out.

For the sake of my question, let's assume the Soviets have launched an all-out first strike.

It's my understanding that it was generally accepted by SAC that their bombers had to be off the ground within fifteen minutes of the beginning of hostilities to be safe from a SLBM strike. I'm guessing that the B-52 cruises somewhere between .85 and .90. So a flight from, say, Dyess to Murmansk probably takes what? Four-and-a-half or five hours? Maybe more?

That means our intrepid Texas-based crew is going to be climbing out over Kansas or Missouri when the first Soviet weapons start arriving. Our manned bomber crews would have had a front-row seat to mankind's worst holocost.

So my first question is mostly an emotional one: how does one prepare to deal with a mental blow like that?

My next question is much more operational. Throught the various media, outsiders like me heard a lot about what SAC would be doing during the "weapons delivery phase" of such a war. What about after? Would our hypothetical crew try to return to Dyess after completing their mission? Dyess and her sister bases are probably large, radioactive holes by now. Are they headed for some place more along their outbound heading...Turkey or Diego Garcia or what-not? Air refueling would certainly have been available before the climax of hostilities, but what about after? What about a crew that's delivered all its bombs and missiles, and then kind find a live tanker anywhere?

Was the mission of the manned bombers assumed (at least unofficially) to be a one-way affair?

Finally, is it possible that most people on the inside of the cold war knew that such questions were moot because nobody was crazy enough to let it happen?

I realize that my operational questions may touch on sensetive areas, but this is a topic that fascinates me. I'd appreciate any input anyone could give me.

Thanks.

P.S. A good friend of our family flew F-4's in Germany and Spain during the 70's. He spoke of nights sitting in the cockpit with an eyepatch on his helmet and a nuke under each wing...not knowing if there'd be a world in the morning. All of you who stood this kind of duty surely have nerves of steel. My hat's off to you, and you have my thanks.
 
It might sound crazy, but the SAC planners had every single sortie planned to a gnat's a$$ -- including departure routings, AR's, targets & alternate targets, and destinations & alternate destinations.

There were plans for MX reconstitution, follow-on missions, command/control, etc.

It may seem insane, but the SIOP was very comprehensive.

Of course, if it ever happened, who knows how it would have actually worked. Thank God we never found out.
 
Truth be told, if the balloon went up, most of those A/C probably stood a gnat's a$$ chance in he!! of getting back to a safe landing spot.

My perch was a little easier. Launch all of my Minuteman missiles and then officially, wait out the counterstrike, go up the escape tunnel and become the King of South Dakota (and one of the very few people alive in Western South Dakota. Unofficially, I figured after I launched all that I could launch, I would go upstairs and watch for the incoming contrail that would signify my being at ground zero of a 500' deep crater
 
From what I've heard from old timers, the whole SIOP until most of SAC got dealerted was absoulutely mind blowing in both scope and thouroghness, including contingency plans for about every scenario. Since the end of the cold War very few planes stand alert, but there is still quite a plan in effect. Will it work? Pray we never find out, But I think a first strike would have been answered quickly, even after the initial damage. Too bad the whole SIOP doesn't work against hijacked airliners with madmen at the controls.
 
It was a bit of a shock for me to see the question, "What is SAC?"

I guess I'm showing my age.

SAC was the Strategic Air Command, the major command which was responsible for all the USAF's strategic nuclear missions. It was decommissioned in 1992, and its assets redistributed to other commands in the Air Force.

The exact makeup of SAC varied through the years (at one time, it even had its own fighter force), but it primarily had operational control of bombers, tankers, long-range reconnaissance and ICBM's.

I myself was a "SAC Warrior" (although just a "tanker toad") for the last two years of the command's existence.

SAC actually predated the existence of the independent USAF (having been formed while the Air Force was still part of the Army), and it had a long & proud history.
 
Last edited:
B-J-J Fighter said:
What is SAC?


SAC was the Strategic Air Command... essentially the Bomber Wing of the Air Force... The TAC or Tactical Air Command was the Fighter Wing and MAC or Military Airlift Command was the Cargo Wing....

I am pretty sure they did away with these designations about 10 years ago....
 
lemay9.jpg


General "Iron Ass" Curt Lemay
SAC/CC

This guy built SAC from a stumbling, ineffective command to something that scared the s**t out of the Soviets.

"Fighters are fun, but Bombers make policy." 10 years ago "they" were predicting the end of the manned bomber. "They" were wrong. Bombers are more important than ever.
 
Last edited:

Latest resources

Back
Top