History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
During the Cold War, the United States did not seem to actively develop anti-aircraft missiles (I know that Wikipedia is not an exhaustive source for lists, but just as a rough estimate, they list seven American systems and around 12 Soviet/Russian systems).
They seem to be cheaper, safer and easier to deploy than fighters for defensive purposes. Why did the US not develop them?
In fact, the U.S. did do a lot of work on AA missile systems, chiefly the Nike program. This included the Nike Ajax, Nike Hercules, and Nike Zeus. The latter was expected to counter ICBM launches. The program was scrapped in 1965 when it was determined that Soviet ICBMs would ultimately overwhelm any defenses, and that the only real defense was the MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) doctrine, the same strategy that was lampooned in Dr. Strangelove. Also, the experiment was costly, delivering less bang for the buck (pun intended) than the administration could stomach, and defense funds were prioritized elsewhere, including to the burgeoning war in Vietnam.
Here are a few excerpts from an interesting website that describes the Nike Missile System:
Nike, named for the mythical Greek goddess of victory, was the name given to a program which ultimately produced the world's first successful, widely-deployed, guided surface-to-air missile system. Planning for Nike was begun during the last months of the Second World War when the U.S. Army realized that conventional anti-aircraft artillery would not be able to provide an adequate defense against the fast, high-flying and maneuverable jet aircraft which were being introduced into service, particularly by the Germans.
[...]
The first successful test firing of a Nike missile occurred during 1951. This first Nike missile was later given the name Nike "Ajax". Nike Ajax was a slender, two-stage guided missile powered by a liquid-fueled motor utilizing a combination of inhibited red fuming nitric acid (IRFNA), unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine (UDMH) and JP-4 jet petroleum. The Ajax was blasted off of its launcher by means of a jettisonable solid fuel rocket booster which fired for about 3 seconds, accelerating the missile with a power of 25 times the force of gravity.
[...]
The shifting nature of the Soviet threat meant that the air defense role, for which Nike was originally intended, became relatively less critical as time passed. Defense dollars were needed for other projects (including the development of American ICBMs and potential missile defenses) and also to fund the rapidly growing war in Vietnam.
The picture above may also be found at the linked site.
The US also has the problem of where to put them. If you have anti-aircraft defences on your own soil it's rather too late (as Germany discovered) and the US is mostly surrounded by sea.
So you need very friendly allies to allow you to install, generally nuclear armed, anti-aircraft missiles in their country - which protects you but makes them an increased target
There were several generations of US AA missiles installed in Canada (eg Bomarc).
The US developed many and very effective AA missiles. BOMARC was an early example and remained in service for over 20 years.
Redeye, Stinger, Hawk, Nike, Patriot, THAAD, Terrier, Talos, Tartar, Standard, Spartan, Sprint, the list goes on and on.
And that's just SAM systems, doesn't include AAM systems, of which several (Sparrow, AMRAAM, ASRAAM, Sidewinder) have found use as SAMs as well.
Of course the number of different systems doesn't come close to the number of different systems employed by the USSR at one time or another, but that's in no small part because of different design and numbering philosophies. When the Soviets designed a new system they usually started from scratch, the Americans tended to do more gradual changes, morphing one system into another over time.
Prime example of this is the US Navy Standard system, now in its 3rd major incarnation but still outwardly similar and using the same name. And it can be argued that Standard is merely a further development of Talos and Terrier. The Nike family is also comprised of several missiles bearing the same name. And at current THAAD is several weapons, Patriot is now in its 3rd incarnation as well.
On the AAM side, AMRAAM is in its 3rd incarnation (though the AIM-120B was not produced), Sidewinder has seen over a dozen variants (including several SAM and ground attack versions, and anti-ship and anti-radar missiles).
Also, they may appear cheaper, but are they? A single missile costing a few million dollars can indeed bring down an aircraft costing a hundred million, but you will likely need several missiles to bring down that aircraft.
Also, missiles are far less flexible than are aircraft, taking longer to forward deploy (especially the larger ones that would replace long range fighters) and are more prone to suffering from environmental problems that aircraft do not. Just ask the British about the trouble with their SAMs during the Falklands campaign.
The United States did have a large system of anti-aircraft missiles. There was a image problem. For the system to be effective there needed to be a lot of them and they were needed to be around the cities. As the anti-war movement grew the missiles became a nearby symbol of the military to protest. Then was the issue or nukes on them. Some of the anti-aircraft missiles had nukes installed on them to stop incoming warheads or formations of bombers. Which missiles had the nukes were not public so every anti-aircraft missiles was suspect. This added the anti-nuke protest. Plus there was a whole controversy between the Airforce and the Army. Each was claiming they should be solely in charge of the anti-aircraft missiles for the nation and doing their utmost to make the others efforts sound like a waste of time. Which mainly sullied the whole idea of anti-aircraft missiles in the public mind. Eventually as part of a whole change in public opinion a great number of programs related to anti-aircraft missiles, bomb shelters, anti-ballistic missiles, and even a lot of radar installations were canceled.
As a historically side not there was the objections to antiaircraft guns being put up in some parts of Great Britain right before the start of WW2 and there is the current controversy with THAAD in South Korea. The aircraft were lost to SAMs in the Vietnam war and the losses Israel had in the Yom Kippur war demonstrated SAMS work. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War][1] Which is why The United States continued to develop portable systems like Patriot surface-to-air missile (SAM) system, which can be set up as needed.
One point to consider... while the US did develop quite a few AA missiles during the Cold War: Bomarc, Ajax, Hawk, etc... they never got much publicity because they weren't used.
The Soviet SAM-2 became famous because it was actually used a lot... to shoot down a U2 (over their territory), in Vietnam, and in Egypt and Syria during the 1973 Yom Kippur war.
What is remembered about the US and AA missiles during that time, is the countermeasures they developed: Radar jammers, missiles that homed in on SAM radar (HARM: high speed anti radar), units trained to destroy SAMs (the Wild Weasels) and aircraft that could either outrun SAM's (the SR71) or aircraft that couldn't be found by SAM's (the F117 and B2).
To date, only one US AA missile has ever received any degree of publicity: the Stinger, as supplied to the opposition forces in Afghanistan during the Soviet intervention there.
That tells us quite a bit about who was on the offensive, and who was on the defensive, during that time.
