How many refuels were needed for a fully-laden B-58 to bomb its
target
in the USSR and come back to Spain?

On a side note, Vice Admiral Gerald E. Miller wrote in his book
"Nuclear Weapons and Aircraft Carriers" that the Navy RA-5C
Vigilantes
- operating from carriers in the Bay of Biscay - were assigned to
targets in Eastern Europe.

Darrell S wrote:
Probably 2 refuelings since the B-58's were first kept in Texas and
later
in
Arkansas and Indiana.


Thanks for the reply but what I want to know is the number of
required
refuelings when the B-58s flew from bases in Spain to bomb targets in
the USSR and come back to Spain.

B-58s were not "based" in Spain. We occasionally flew B-58s there for
weapon loading practice and to test the ability to deploy them there if
the
situation required it. I flew one from Madrid to Little Rock after
another
crew had flown it from Little Rock to Spain. There may have been some
contingency plans but, as aircrews, we never studied them or considered
them. When the ballistic missile threat from submarines off our coasts
reduced the early warning time we began deploying some B-58s to other
bases
but they were in the U.S.. This was done to reduce the possiblility of
them
all being wiped out before any could launch.

Potential war sorties out of the U.S. did not include returning to the
U.S..
Post strike bases were on the periphery of the Soviet Union and China.
But... IF... the B-58 were to launch from Spain, strike USSR, and
return, it
should not require any air refuelings except for very long sorties deep
into
Eastern USSR..

Thanks a lot for the reply. Did the post-strike bases on the periphery
of the Soviet Union and China include bases in South Korea, Taiwan and
Japan?

That's still rather "sensitive" information. I flew the B-47 and the
B-52 as well as the B-58. Post strike bases were planned all around the
USSR and China. That includes Europe, North Africa, the Mid-East and
Asia. Some bases were planned to have fuel so the bombers could re-deploy
back to North America. Many weren't "bases", just runways and I'm not
sure the host countries even knew they were in our plans,


While it may be "sensitive" information today, I seriously doubt that it
is classified in any way. (The general knowledge, not the specific
details.)

As for the host countries knowledge at the time?????

The fact that the US had nuke weapons, in such places as Greenland, Tiwan,
South Korea, Japan, (places in mainland Japan, plus Okinawa, Chiba Jima,
Iwo Jima) and a lot of other places around the world, has been know for a
number of years. That the host country didn't know about it would argue
that they didn't know about plans to use their runways as recovery bases
either.

The fact that the US had weapons at these places when the host country
didn't know about it, isn't talked about because of its "sensitive"
nature, but the general knowledge isn't classified while the specific
details may still be.

That's exactly why I used the term "sensitive" rather than "classified".
Pundits frequently correctly state that nuclear weapons are in a particular
place but for a military person to confirm that with his personal knowledge
is not recommended. Most especially information about weapon types and
aircraft/weapon numbers. A similar situation exists on discussions about
what countries permit our military aircraft/weapons to be on their soil.
Some country leaders may "privately" allow our aircraft and weapons on their
soil but, for political purposes, don't wish that information to become
public knowledge. I don't approve or disapprove of that secrecy but....
that's the way it is.