Skybolt enters service, now what?

[isayyo2]

I'd love to hear everyones thoughts on the topic; if Skybolt enters service, what differences if any does it make?

For SAC and USAF, it gives them an airborne deterrence rivaled only by the equally impressive Polaris program. But Vietnam still occurs, and conventional capabilities are still a necessity.
For the RAF, it gives their manned bombers a significant punch without the need for expensive silo or submarine based missiles.

For the Soviets, is the weapon a nightmare? American bombers can prowl well outside their air defense bubbles, existing interceptors do not have the range to intercept them before launch. Do heavy aircraft like the Tu-128 become the PVO standard?

For Boeing, are additional B-52H orders possible? Could pre-G models reasonably carry the Skybolt, or are additional TF33 B-52s needed for SAC?

Going forward, what would SAC's future requirements look like? SRAM seems unneeded, but ALCMs would probably still occur?

 

[Orionblamblam]

At best a B-52 could carry 8 of the Skybolts, but rather more of the SRAMs and/or gravity bombs. The smaller weapons give a lot more flexibility in terms of targeting and warheads, so I don't know just how big the Skybolt fleet would end up being. Might even go with a non-B-52 carrier like the C-141.

 

[GTX]

I suggest a reading of this book if you are interested in this topic:

 

[royabulgaf]

Well, with the Skybolt in SAC service, the B-70 would be a non-starter. The FB-111H would go into production instead oof the B-1.

 

[uk 75]

My understanding of UK planning was that the Sjybolt was due to give way in the 1970s to a submarine based missile system.
Money was tight in the UK so that the force would soon have been limited to 48 Vulcan B2 aircraft. The proposed VC10 Poffler force would have competed either with Polaris or an Anglo French SLBM.

 

[Dilandu]

More money put on not-exactly-very-good rocket for bomber fleet. Less money for USAF to spend on ICBM's. Since the role of USAF bombers as second-strike deterrence was diminishing fast in 1960s, basically USAF would meet 1970s in even worse state, than in real life.

My conclusion - the good probability of USAF losing nuclear deterrence role to the Navy, like in Britain.

 

[Scott Kenny]

More money put on not-exactly-very-good rocket for bomber fleet. Less money for USAF to spend on ICBM's. Since the role of USAF bombers as second-strike deterrence was diminishing fast in 1960s, basically USAF would meet 1970s in even worse state, than in real life.

My conclusion - the good probability of USAF losing nuclear deterrence role to the Navy, like in Britain.

Maybe for bombers, not for land-based missiles.

=====
I greatly question the accuracy of Skybolt.

 

[pathology_doc]

At best a B-52 could carry 8 of the Skybolts, but rather more of the SRAMs and/or gravity bombs.

IIRC, SRAM post-dates Skybolt by quite a significant margin and the decision for one versus the other is moot. In a world where Skybolt goes into service, is SRAM even developed?

 

[Scott Kenny]

At best a B-52 could carry 8 of the Skybolts, but rather more of the SRAMs and/or gravity bombs.

IIRC, SRAM post-dates Skybolt by quite a significant margin and the decision for one versus the other is moot. In a world where Skybolt goes into service, is SRAM even developed?

Probably, since they do different jobs.

You'd have Skybolt squadrons doing the initial "blast a path" for whoever got stuck with penetration missions, and SRAM was for the penetrators.

 

[uk 75]

Getting Skybolt to work effectively was probably beyond the state of the art in 1962 rather like Typhon and Mauler.

The US used Hound Dog equipped B52s well into the 70s alongside the new SRAM missiles. B52G and H models would have received Skybolts in the 1960s but Dogs and SRAMs would have been used too.

By the 1980s either a Skybolt derived ALBM or the ALCM would have replaced Skybolts in SAC. So not much impact.

The RAF would have operated some 48 Vulcan B2 with Skybolts in the 1960s but it was always planned to replace them with an SLBM force for the RN in the 1970s.

Given the poor state of UK relations with the Nixon Administration a Poseidon deal would have been harder than the 1962 Nassau Agreement. Relations with France were much better so a UK procurement of French missiles for a Swiftsure class derivative might have happened.

More likely though, given the c**p state of the UK economy after 1973 and the priorities of the 1974 Wilson Government the Skybolt Vulcans would have been run on until 1979 without replacement.

The 1976 Callaghan Government may well then have done what it did in our timeline and used its close relations with the Carter White House to procure Cruise Missiles for the RAF or embark on the Trident procurement. ALCM equipped Vulcans or Tornados might have been attractive if the RN had not bought Polaris in 1962.

 

[Kiltonge]

Getting Skybolt to work effectively was probably beyond the state of the art in 1962 rather like Typhon and Mauler.

I'd disagree with that. There was nothing technically more advanced in Skybolt compared to Polaris and in many aspects ( e.g. launch dynamics ) it was vastly simpler.

The main hindrance was that Skybolt was being developed on a fraction of the Navy missile's budget, simply because it was one of many concurrent SAC initiatives rather than something existential, as Polaris was for the Navy.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Getting Skybolt to work effectively was probably beyond the state of the art in 1962 rather like Typhon and Mauler.

I'd disagree with that. There was nothing technically more advanced in Skybolt compared to Polaris and in many aspects ( e.g. launch dynamics ) it was vastly simpler.

The main hindrance was that Skybolt was being developed on a fraction of the Navy missile's budget, simply because it was one of many concurrent SAC initiatives rather than something existential, as Polaris was for the Navy.

You still need the missile to know exactly where it was at point of launch and where it was supposed to land.

That's why it took so long to make SLBMs usable for the counterforce mission.

 

[Lascaris]

Getting Skybolt to work effectively was probably beyond the state of the art in 1962 rather like Typhon and Mauler.

I'd disagree with that. There was nothing technically more advanced in Skybolt compared to Polaris and in many aspects ( e.g. launch dynamics ) it was vastly simpler.

The main hindrance was that Skybolt was being developed on a fraction of the Navy missile's budget, simply because it was one of many concurrent SAC initiatives rather than something existential, as Polaris was for the Navy.

You still need the missile to know exactly where it was at point of launch and where it was supposed to land.

Well can it find Moscow and Leningrad?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Getting Skybolt to work effectively was probably beyond the state of the art in 1962 rather like Typhon and Mauler.

I'd disagree with that. There was nothing technically more advanced in Skybolt compared to Polaris and in many aspects ( e.g. launch dynamics ) it was vastly simpler.

The main hindrance was that Skybolt was being developed on a fraction of the Navy missile's budget, simply because it was one of many concurrent SAC initiatives rather than something existential, as Polaris was for the Navy.

You still need the missile to know exactly where it was at point of launch and where it was supposed to land.

Well can it find Moscow and Leningrad?

Not if it doesn't know where it's starting from.

 

[Hood]

Skybolt would have been used with a star tracker to update the inertial system so there is no reason to suppose that it wouldn't have a fairly decent fix before launch.

 

[uk 75]

This thread is relevant to my just posted UK deterrent thread.
Skybolt became crucial to the continued use of the RAF to be the deliverers of the deterrent.
Also this book

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/skybolt-at-arms-length.32430/