ASM/ASuW research

Share your best strategies and tactics with other players by posting them here.

Moderator: MOD_Command

Post Reply
User avatar
AdmiralSteve
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:32 pm
Location: Red Bluff, CA

ASM/ASuW research

Post by AdmiralSteve »

I'm looking to create a series of three scenarios between NATO/US and the Soviet union in the 1963-1964 time-frame. In my research, the Soviets appeared to be well versed in anti-ship missile technology with several missiles such as the SS-N-1 Scrubber, SS-N-2 Styx and SS-N-3 Shaddock with ranges of 40KM, 80KM and 450KM respectively. Does anyone know if NATO/US had a response for the Soviet's capability of stand-off ASM weapons during that time?
Thanks, Steve
“There are no extraordinary men...just extraordinary circumstances that ordinary men are forced to deal with.”
Admiral William Frederick Halsey Jr. 1882-1959

jarraya
Posts: 339
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:04 pm

RE: ASM/ASuW research

Post by jarraya »

ORIGINAL: AdmSteebe

I'm looking to create a series of three scenarios between NATO/US and the Soviet union in the 1963-1964 time-frame. In my research, the Soviets appeared to be well versed in anti-ship missile technology with several missiles such as the SS-N-1 Scrubber, SS-N-2 Styx and SS-N-3 Shaddock with ranges of 40KM, 80KM and 450KM respectively. Does anyone know if NATO/US had a response for the Soviet's capability of stand-off ASM weapons during that time?
Thanks, Steve
I think this might be the answer.

From Wikipedia:
The F-111B was part of the 1960s TFX program. The USAF's Tactical Air Command (TAC) was largely concerned with the fighter-bomber and deep strike/interdiction roles. The aircraft would be a follow-on to the F-105 Thunderchief. In June 1960 the USAF issued a specification for a long-range interdiction/strike aircraft able to penetrate Soviet air defenses at very low altitudes and very high speeds to deliver tactical nuclear weapons against crucial targets.[2] Meanwhile the U.S. Navy sought a long-range, high-endurance interceptor to defend its aircraft carrier battle groups against long-range anti-ship missiles launched from Soviet jet bombers (Tupolev Tu-16, Tupolev Tu-22, later Tupolev Tu-22M) and submarines. The Navy needed a Fleet Air Defense (FAD) aircraft with a more powerful radar, and longer range missiles than the F-4 Phantom II to intercept both enemy bombers and missiles.[3]

This is the predecessor to the F-14 Tomcat, which was designed specifically for the purpose of killing bombers and missiles early.
User avatar
SeaQueen
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:20 am
Location: Washington D.C.

RE: ASM/ASuW research

Post by SeaQueen »

Yes. In the case of the U.S. Navy, it was a layered defense of surface to air missiles (Talos, Tartar, Terrier, Standard), 5" guns and long range fleet air defense interceptors (F-4 Phantom), all supported by AWACs aircraft (EC-121, and E-1 aircraft). Their goal was to hopefully knock down an ASCM raid or bombers.

As far as offence against the vessels carrying those sorts of weapons, the A-6 was the primary long range bomber which was to be used in the anti-ship role. A-1s were basically obsolete at that point, but they were still in the fleet. I doubt they'd have been used against anything but the most non-threatening Soviet targets. A-4s might also be used albeit at shorter range. At the time, people basically expected any conflict to go nuclear almost immediately so all of these aircraft would probably be equipped with nuclear weapons.

Additionally submarines would attack Soviet cruise missile carrying SAGs with torpedoes. There were several types of torpedoes floating around in that period of different sizes. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them were equipped with nuclear warheads (e.g. ASTOR), although ASTOR was nominally an ASW torpedo I don't see why it couldn't be used against surface vessels as well.

It's important to note that at the time, the US did not have an ASCM capability. That didn't happen until 1977 when Harpoon entered service. Aircraft would attack ships with bombs and rockets while submarines would attack with torpedoes. Historically, the US lagged the Soviets in the development of ASCMs, and relied on aircraft and submarines for ASuW.
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”