History, Politics And Current Affairs

Posted: **Sun Feb 15, 2026 7:40 pm**

I literally had a shower thought earlier.

We've been assuming for years that the main role for the BACKFIRE/Tu95/etc etc Kh-22 combo was to sink CVNs or to put pressure on HATO warships.

But what if they were for damage limitation?

1.) Kh-22 can fly 600~ km in a bit over 6 minutes and can be armed with a nuke.

2.) It has a fairly inaccurate "target geographic coordinates" mode.

3.) It can be carried by Тu-22K ('Blinder-B'), Tu-22M (BACKFIRE), and Tu-95K22 ('Bear-G') strategic bombers on patrol missions.

A roughly six minute flight time combined with the slow fire rate of the 598 and 608 SSBNs (1 missile per minute = 15-16 minutes to launch all tubes)...

...means that an orbiting Soviet Long Range Aviation aircraft could sink a Polaris boat after it fired only 6 or 7 missiles via nuclear depth charging them via long range "geographic coordinate shots".

Granted, by the 616 class, fire rate was increased to groups of 4 tubes every minute so the danger of being nuked by orbiting MPA was much less...

But this begs a serious question...

Was the USN's maritime strategy + outer air battle + CVBGs going up against Backfire regiments actually more about securing air dominance over the North Atlantic Region to enable SSBNs to execute their emergency war target launches without being sunk by Soviet MPA?

Remember that almost all war planning assumed some sort of "lead up" to General Nuclear War precluded by intense pre-crisis maneuvering or limited conventional war.

Remember that UMLS (Trident) only began service in large quantities fairly late in the Cold War -- OHIO didn't execute her first deterrent patrol until October 1982, followed by future boats in yearly intervals.

Likewise, the British had the extremely short ranged Polaris A3T with Chevaline from 1982-1996

The French had the M1 (1,600 mile) M2 (2,000 mile) and M20 (1,900 mile) SLBMs; which aren't that long ranged as well.

Soooo.....

Posted: **Sun Feb 15, 2026 8:33 pm**

...means that an orbiting Soviet Long Range Aviation aircraft could sink a Polaris boat after it fired only 6 or 7 missiles via nuclear depth charging them via long range "geographic coordinate shots".

Could they do nuclear depth charging to this degree of accuracy?

Prinz Eugen was 1,200 yards away form the Baker explosion and made it. Sort of. Ok, nukes got better in the meantime but how accurate is "geographic coordinate shots" under testing and wartime conditions?

Enough?

Posted: **Sun Feb 15, 2026 8:40 pm**

I think that the 41-For-Freedom fleet is a residue of the original "From the Sea" USN Deterrence Strategy, which was:

3. It is now technologically possible for the United States, at reasonable cost, to remove its nuclear striking forces from within the United States and to deploy them in mobile bases over the far reaches of the uninhabited global seas. The Polaris missile, now full-developed and operational, and soon to have a range up to 2500 miles, is being installed aboard submarines and surface ships. Modern aircraft carriers, the only mobile air bases our Nation has, have been improved tremendously since World War II, and are capable of operating from their decks the most modern, high performance aircraft technology can provide.

These tactically integrated air-missile striking forces, together with modern amphibious forces and defensive forces capable of denying use of the seas to our enemies, provide our Nation with an oceanic maneuvering and battle area over 35 times as extensive as the United States itself. With our nuclear striking forces deployed at sea the enemy will be forced to devote the bulk of his counterforce effort against them, drawing off nuclear strikes which might otherwise be directed against the United States.

4. Nuclear striking forces on the move at sea cannot be targeted in advance. Their reduced vulnerability to quick destruction discourages enemy planning for surprise attack and reduces the need on our part for hair-trigger response and provocative intelligence gathering.

5. Transfer of U.S. nuclear striking power from its present fixed-base emphasis to a more equitable mix of land-based and sea-based systems would require the procurement of the following forces over the next 5 to 10 year period:

24 Attack aircraft carriers
24 Polaris missile cruisers
45 Polaris submarines

6. The attack carriers, the cruisers, and to some extent the submarines, would have additional capabilities such as antisubmarine, antiair, anti-missile, and mobile command capabilities, as well as capabilities necessary for support of limited war and protection of shipping operations. They would be organized, along with other Naval forces, into three basic Fleets -- the Atlantic Fleet, the Pacific Fleet and the Southern Fleet.

7. The Southern Fleet would eventually operate from a broad complex of logistic, operating, and even construction, bases to be developed in such areas as Australia, New Zealand, South America and South Africa -- far removed from the bases of Sino-Soviet military power.

8. Each Fleet would be commanded from a modern, mobile command ship, each of which would be capable of taking command of the other two Fleets, in event any one or both of the others, together with our fixed-base command facilities, had been knocked out.

It makes more sense for a CGN to have Polaris if the missile is 1500 miles range; because:

1.) The CGN can use Talos to shoot down any incoming missiles after the CGN announces to the world that it's started WW3.

2.) Because the CGN doesn't have to counterbalance the expulsion of a Polaris Missile from a SSBN launch tube, which is then flooded with much denser seawater; the CGN can launch it's missiles in much less time than the SSBN.

3.) The CGN is "in touch" more closely with shore based C3I; and can execute it's EWOs almost immediately, none of this "wait for EAMs to come in on very low frequencies, then slowly rise to launch depth to verify EAM" rigamole.

4. Because the CGN has a substantial anti-air battery, it can start launching almost immediately; even if enemy forces are in the region. What does a Polaris SSBN CO do if they raise the ESM mast(s) to get the EAM and the ESM starts spiking with a Soviet radar associated with Maritime Patrol Aircraft within 25 miles of the sub's location? Do they launch then and there and accept certain suicide; or do they delay and hope the MPA flies off?

I think what happened is that the SSBN force was intended to be a "last ditch" ultimate reserve whose only job was to sit and wait, while the actual plan was:

1.) CGN launched Polaris missiles strike enemy SAM sites as defense suppression, opening up the way for:

2.) Carrier launched heavy attack to strike actual targets.

When Heavy Attack from the CVAs died, and when the Polaris Surface Ships did too; the USN had to hurriedly come up with a rationale for SSBNs; which is why a lot of their Pro-Polaris stuff seems so discombolated and out of odds with their prior statements haranguing the USAF from the B-36 hearings over indiscriminate murder from USAF aerial bombardment of urban-industrial areas.

Posted: **Sat Feb 21, 2026 6:17 pm**

Didn’t the Italians have surface-launched POLARIS on at least one cruiser in the Cold War, under dual-key?

Posted: **Sat Feb 21, 2026 7:04 pm**

Craiglxviii wrote: ↑Sat Feb 21, 2026 6:17 pm Didn’t the Italians have surface-launched POLARIS on at least one cruiser in the Cold War, under dual-key?

Yes they did

Not for long as I recall but I’d have to dig a bit for the details

Posted: **Sat Feb 21, 2026 8:37 pm**

Craiglxviii wrote: ↑Sat Feb 21, 2026 6:17 pm Didn’t the Italians have surface-launched POLARIS on at least one cruiser in the Cold War, under dual-key?

This spawned another rabbit hole!

The GIUSEPPE GARIBALDI, ex WW2 6” gunned light cruiser. She was rebuilt to include 4 x Polaris tubes. And Terrier, by the way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_c ... ldi_(1936)

The USN neglected to provide any Polaris. So the Italians designed and developed their own..! Alfa, it was designed to carry a 1-ton payload out to 1600km.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa_(rocket)

They got as far as successful first-stage tests before Italy bowed out and signed the NNPT in 1975.

Posted: **Sat Feb 21, 2026 10:58 pm**

Ok, Italians in the 70s with nuclear capable missiles on a WW2 cruiser?

That happened to be WNT compliant when commissioned?

History, Politics And Current Affairs

Which came first, the CVBG or SSBN for Soviet Long Range Aviation?

Which came first, the CVBG or SSBN for Soviet Long Range Aviation?

Re: Which came first, the CVBG or SSBN for Soviet Long Range Aviation?

Re: Which came first, the CVBG or SSBN for Soviet Long Range Aviation?

Re: Which came first, the CVBG or SSBN for Soviet Long Range Aviation?

Re: Which came first, the CVBG or SSBN for Soviet Long Range Aviation?

Re: Which came first, the CVBG or SSBN for Soviet Long Range Aviation?

Re: Which came first, the CVBG or SSBN for Soviet Long Range Aviation?