# XB-70 valkyrie vs B-1B lancer



## space dodo (Jun 24, 2021)

if the valkyrie had not forgone that fatal collision with the F-104, would there have been no need for the lancer ?


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 24, 2021)

The B-70 wasn't canceled because of a collision during a GE publicity shot; it was shut down because it was no longer seen to be a worthwhile weapons platform, especially since ICBMs could do the same task more cheaply.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Jun 29, 2021)

Specifically, there was strong concern that Soviet SAMs would be able to shoot down any bomber penetrating at high altitude... since Col. Powers had just been shot down in his U-2, which was the highest-flying operational military aircraft of the time. After all, an aircraft flying at high altitude was easily spotted a long way off by large ground radar stations, allowing sufficient time to plot out effective SAM intercept launch windows.

As the B-70 was totally incapable of long-range and/or high-speed flight at low altitude where they would not be detected until too late to fire SAMs or launch interceptor aircraft (look-down/shoot-down radars in aircraft were still an "I wish we could" item at the time), it was deemed to be a waste of money. 

Too bad they hadn't built a few more, though... with its higher operating altitude and higher speed than the B-52,
it would have been the perfect launch platform for the proposed X-15B orbital spaceplane.

As in this fictional illustration:

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## msxyz (Jun 30, 2021)

At any rate, as the SR-71 demonstrated, it's very difficult to intercept and provide a viable firing solution for any aircraft flying at Mach 3 at over 20000m.

The USSR was able to discourage SR-71 flights near its borders only in early 80s using multiple Mig-25/31 in a coordinated effort to bring one of those aircrafts into a window of opportunity lasting only a few seconds in which it was possible to get a lock on and fire a long range AAM such as the AA-6 or AA-9.

Intercepting with a ground based missile is equally difficult because it needs to be able to travel hundreds of kilometers just to catch up with the plane (and, in any case, it needs at least to reach mach 4 at altitude). The "D" revisions of the the S-200 (introduced in 1976) were probably barely able to do that, and only if the target would pass sufficiently near a launcher.

In any case, the appearance of cheap and compact ballistic missiles that could be fired over thousands of kilometers from a mobile unit or from a small ship made these bombers obsolete. A long range ballistic missile can fly much faster and, since it will be falling down from the sky at a step angle, it's also much more difficult to intercept.


----------



## HayateFan (Jul 4, 2021)

msxyz said:


> In any case, the appearance of cheap and compact ballistic missiles that could be fired over thousands of kilometers from a mobile unit or from a small ship made these bombers obsolete. A long range ballistic missile can fly much faster and, since it will be falling down from the sky at a step angle, it's also much more difficult to intercept.


Very much in line with the UK's White Paper of April 1957. 
But in reality, even in a strategic situation, limiting yourself to only one type of weapon can lead to grave limitations, especially if your intended target happens to move. One of the reason ballistic missiles never completely replaced manned aircraft was for that kind of realization; the need to be more flexible than to simply point-and-shoot. Missiles have their niche, and are indeed needed, but they are not the end-all, be-all answer to every type of warfare, hence the current mixing of manned and unmanned weapons to deal with an array of situations.
That being said, the B-1 definitely has an edge over the B-70. If one removes the benefits of missiles, the B-70 (or at the very least NAA's version of it) still had far too many limitations to really be a game-changer in aerial warfare. Speed was its biggest selling point, not it's weapons load or its versatility to do any other role except recon or high speed research in general. Its one of the most impressive aircraft to be built and flow, that's for sure. But it's scope was too narrowly set, and I think that was realized well before it flew. That, plus the cost of making it ensured it would never see widespread use (a fleet of 15-20 at most could have been justified, at most). The B-1 avoided this curse by being more flexible...It was fast at height (at least for the B-1A), but could also hit the deck and come screaming under the radar, and had a wider speed range in general. The B-70 had just one profile; high and fast. Overall, it wasn't missiles that doomed it, it was that it far too specialized to be of long term use. Maybe it couldn't be shot down because it was so fast and flew so high, but it was still easily detectable, plottable, and predictable, allowing for some countermeasures like moving the target of the area, meaning the bomber will strike an now worthless target. 
I like the XB-70, but not enough to think it was more useful than it really was.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## msxyz (Jul 4, 2021)

HayateFan said:


> Very much in line with the UK's White Paper of April 1957.
> But in reality, even in a strategic situation, limiting yourself to only one type of weapon can lead to grave limitations, especially if your intended target happens to move.


You're right on both accounts: especially 70 years ago, when missiles had to be programmed before launch and their trajectory couldn't be adjusted in the terminal phase, manned aircrafts still had their place. But indeed the B-70 was too specialised and the role for which it was born fell exactly in the same niche that missiles occupied. The B-1 (and also the TSR-2 or some soviet equivalents) on the other side could be used for precision strikes on highly mobile targets in a dynamic environment. The B-70 was basically a big, fast carrier for a large hydrogen bomb, dropped from 20000+ meters.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 4, 2021)

As long as we're here, did the XB-70 have a bomb bay or was it just a proof of concept type?


----------



## space dodo (Jul 4, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> As long as we're here, did the XB-70 have a bomb bay or was it just a proof of concept type?



for the current debate were going to assume it had a bomb bay but idk if the proof of concept had one


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 4, 2021)

Thanks. I built the B-70 model almost 60 years ago and I think the descriptive blurb said it didn't actually carry weapons. Yeah, I could look it up but its way more fun to have a conversation with you guys. Wiki doesn't go off thread.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 4, 2021)

HayateFan said:


> Very much in line with the UK's White Paper of April 1957.
> But in reality, even in a strategic situation, limiting yourself to only one type of weapon can lead to grave limitations, especially if your intended target happens to move. One of the reason ballistic missiles never completely replaced manned aircraft was for that kind of realization; the need to be more flexible than to simply point-and-shoot. Missiles have their niche, and are indeed needed, but they are not the end-all, be-all answer to every type of warfare, hence the current mixing of manned and unmanned weapons to deal with an array of situations.
> That being said, the B-1 definitely has an edge over the B-70. If one removes the benefits of missiles, the B-70 (or at the very least NAA's version of it) still had far too many limitations to really be a game-changer in aerial warfare. Speed was its biggest selling point, not it's weapons load or its versatility to do any other role except recon or high speed research in general. Its one of the most impressive aircraft to be built and flow, that's for sure. But it's scope was too narrowly set, and I think that was realized well before it flew. That, plus the cost of making it ensured it would never see widespread use (a fleet of 15-20 at most could have been justified, at most). The B-1 avoided this curse by being more flexible...It was fast at height (at least for the B-1A), but could also hit the deck and come screaming under the radar, and had a wider speed range in general. The B-70 had just one profile; high and fast. Overall, it wasn't missiles that doomed it, it was that it far too specialized to be of long term use. Maybe it couldn't be shot down because it was so fast and flew so high, but it was still easily detectable, plottable, and predictable, *allowing for some countermeasures like moving the target of the area, meaning the bomber will strike an now worthless target.*
> I like the XB-70, but not enough to think it was more useful than it really was.



While I agree with the most of your post, I think that armed with a nuke or two, it could be very useful against immobile targets. Imagine, for instance, hitting Murmansk, Leningrad, Gdansk, and Odessa in the opening hours of a war: whatever ships in harbor are rendered impotent, and whatever ships at sea will have problems with anything beyond victualling. Other targets could be things like vital infrastructure.

That is, of course, a limited use, and the program's costs most likely wouldn't be justified by that alone. But immobile targets of any sort could be made vulnerable to a high-speed dash.

Again, a minor quibble, not a steadfast objection. And again, welcome to the forum.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 4, 2021)

Why is this in a WW2 forum?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 4, 2021)

Milosh said:


> Why is this in a WW2 forum?



_Wunderwaffen_!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 6, 2021)

in my opinon every air force needs a supersonic bomber boom and zoom does work if you dont have a mach 3 capible bomber which we (the us) dont than what are you doing


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> in my opinon every air force needs a supersonic bomber boom and zoom does work if you dont have a mach 3 capible bomber which we (the us) dont than what are you doing


Why does "every air force needs a supersonic bomber" when you have ICBMs and standoff weapons that can be carried and fly in excess of Mach 3?? And what do you mean about "boom and zoom"?


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 6, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Why does "every air force needs a supersonic bomber" when you have ICBMs and standoff weapons that can be carried and fly in excess of Mach 3?? And what do you mean about "boom and zoom"?


boom and zoom tacics mean getting in dropping the load and getting out before the enemy knows your there missles have problems one they can be detected and shot easyly two their useless if the target moves but a low flying supersonic bomber could get in undetected drop the bombs and get out


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> boom and zoom tacics mean getting in dropping the load and getting out before the enemy knows your there missles have problems one they can be detected and shot easyly two their useless if the target moves but a low flying supersonic bomber could get in undetected drop the bombs and get out


You don't need to go supersonic to do that. Many modern bombers and strike aircraft use stand off weapons. I can tell you your comment about missiles make no sense. Stand off air to ground weapons are highly accurate and ensure the survival of the delivery aircraft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 6, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You don't need to go supersonic to do that. Many modern bombers and strike aircraft use stand off weapons. I can tell you your comment about missiles make no sense. Stand off air to ground weapons are highly accurate and ensure the survival of the delivery aircraft.


im sorry its just my opinon i would perfer to have a b-70 style bomber


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> im sorry its just my opinon i would perfer to have a b-70 style bomber


Well I can tell you your thinking is about 60 years out dated


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 6, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well I can tell you your thinking is about 60 years out dated


maybe but i want a supersonic bomber in sercive


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> maybe but i want a supersonic bomber in sercive


Well your testosteronal desire.


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 6, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well your testosteronal desire.


no that would be nascar driver natalie decker hahahaha she is beauiful like the b-70 which i wish we had used


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> no that would be nascar driver natalie decker hahahaha she is beauiful like the b-70 which i wish we had used


Aside from beauty, the B-70, then and now would be a sitting duck and as pointed out was not designed to operate at low level. Even the B-1B is becoming obsolete as we have smaller strike aircraft that can accomplish the same mission more efficiently at lower risk. Do some homework and you'll find this out

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 6, 2021)

The B-1B is pretty cool. More capable AND better looking.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> The B-1B is pretty cool. More capable AND better looking.


Although I never worked on the program, an aircraft very near and dear to my family as mentioned, my father in law was the production test pilot on the program.


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 6, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> The B-1B is pretty cool. More capable AND better looking.


not as fast thought and not better looking than the big delta wings of the b-70


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 6, 2021)

Better yet, it's built by Boeing!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> not as fast thought and not better looking than the big delta wings of the b-70


Speed doesn't matter when you can be tracked hundreds of miles away and killed before you even make the target area

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 6, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Better yet, it's built by Boeing!


theres something about big detla wings that just says yes


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Better yet, it's built by Boeing!


But it was a North American Aviation product. The legacy is there despite the acquisition

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Jul 6, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> The B-1B is pretty cool. More capable AND better looking.


But a nightmare to a maintenance guy. 

I challenge you to find a single hydraulics troop that loved working that beast!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 6, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> But it was a North American Aviation product. The legacy is there despite the acquisition


the b-70 is like nascar driver natalie decker beauiful and talented (google her shes too cute )


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> the b-70 is like nascar driver natalie decker beauiful and talented (google her shes too cute )


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 6, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> But it was a North American Aviation product. The legacy is there despite the acquisition


Boeing and NAA. Can't beat that. Oh wait, isn't there a Douglas connection too?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Boeing and NAA. Can't beat that. Oh wait, isn't there a Douglas connection too?


Yep - all swallowed up - winner takes all!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 6, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


>


whats with the face its a perfect comparsion


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> whats with the face its a perfect comparsion


No - the B-70 is 60 years old, the comparison would look like this:

Reactions: Funny Funny:
6 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 6, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> No - the B-70 is 60 years old, the comparison would look like this:
> 
> View attachment 631364


no what im saying is its a good looking aircraft like decker is a good loooking woman and idc what people say i believe theres a use for it


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> no what im saying is its a good looking aircraft like decker is a good loooking woman and idc what people say i believe theres a use for it


Well I guess you have tons of aviation experience to make that determination. Maybe you should apply for a management position at Northrop Grumman!


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 6, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well I guess you have tons of aviation experience to make that determination. Maybe you should apply for a management position at Northrop Grumman!


no im a airplane buff with a opinion


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> no im a airplane buff with a opinion


Well good, your opinion counts but some of us actually worked on these things, but you're still entitled to your opinion


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 6, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well good, your opinion counts but some of us actually worked on these things, but you're still entitled to your opinion


ok thanks for at least giving me a chance

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 6, 2021)

He has his moments.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Jul 6, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> As long as we're here, did the XB-70 have a bomb bay or was it just a proof of concept type?


The both XB-70's did have bomb bays, though they were both filled with test equipment. The bomb bay door slid forward or aft, I can't remember.

One other point, having read what it took just to get the Valkyrie into the air for each test flight I don't believe it would have been a reliable weapon system without major preflight preparation improvements. Perhaps it could have been used as a "Silver Bullet" in some situations, either as a bomber or for reconnaissance (but it would be had to beat the SR-71).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2021)

Milosh said:


> Why is this in a WW2 forum?



It’s been moved to the post war forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> boom and zoom tacics mean getting in dropping the load and getting out before the enemy knows your there missles have problems one they can be detected and shot easyly two their useless if the target moves but a low flying supersonic bomber could get in undetected drop the bombs and get out



Cold War doctrine. It’s the 21st century, join it. Technology has improved.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yep - all swallowed up - winner takes all!



Yes we did...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> no what im saying is its a good looking aircraft like decker is a good loooking woman and idc what people say i believe theres a use for it



Current military technology reders your XB-70 no longer needed.

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 6, 2021)

The XB-70 kit I built came with Continental Airlines decals. You could build an SST.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Jul 6, 2021)

There is a use for the XB-70. It's at the USAF museum to look at. ouuu...aaah

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 6, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Current military technology reders your XB-70 no longer needed.


always have it on standby as a nuclear derent


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> always have it on standby as a nuclear derent



Current technology renders it no longer needed.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2021)

ICBM’s and Cruise Missiles say hello.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> always have it on standby as a nuclear derent


Why? It has the radar signature the size of Jupiter, too expensive to operate and has antiquated systems and avionics. The best "deterrent" that could be accomplished is to keep it at the Air Force Museum.


----------



## special ed (Jul 6, 2021)

What about the B-58? It is a delta wing, very fast, nuclear capable, and there is one (at least) left at the AF museum. One could look at both and imagine.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 6, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Why? It has the radar signature the size of Jupiter, too expensive to operate and has antiquated systems an avionics. The best "deterrent" that could be accomplished is to keep it at the Air Force Museum.


Well, didn't the B-52 have antiquated avionics?


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 6, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Why? It has the radar signature the size of Jupiter, too expensive to operate and has antiquated systems an avionics. The best "deterrent" that could be accomplished is to keep it at the Air Force Museum.


i still say bulid it


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Well, didn't the B-52 have antiquated avionics?



Yes, but its role has been modified and adapted.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 6, 2021)

bulid the b70


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> bulid the b70

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 6, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes, but its role has been modified and adapted.


Just pointing out the obvious. The avionics might not have been that big an issue regarding the XB-70. Although the rest of it is dead on. Face it, kid, if aircraft were retained because of how cool they looked, the skies would be flooded with LWS-6's and F2A's.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Jul 6, 2021)

Well, maybe an XFM-1 Airacuda.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 6, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> always have it on standby as a nuclear derent


The most effective nuclear deterrence is launched from a platform with an RCS of zero and a max speed of about M=0.01

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 6, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> The most effective nuclear deterrence is launched from a platform with an RCS of zero and a max speed of about M=0.01


what kind of plane is that


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> what kind of plane is that

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 6, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> View attachment 631410


thats a missle


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> thats a missle


Exactly

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 6, 2021)

Off thread, but is punctuation not a thing anymore?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 6, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Exactly


ill take my bomber instead


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> thats a missle



Now that we have established that, do you understand that it is more of nuclear deterrent than your B-70 ever was?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Off thread, but is punctuation not a thing anymore?


I guess it's up there with writing in script

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> ill take my bomber instead



Good thing you do not make defense policy and doctrine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 6, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Good thing you do not make defense policy and doctrine.


misslles do no good if the grid is down and you cant lauch them

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> misslles do no good if the grid is down and you cant lauch them



Huh?

What Hollywood movies are you watching or video games are you playing?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 6, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> what kind of plane is that


SLBMs launched by a submarine, like SSBN740, USS _Rhode_ _Island_.USS Rhode Island (SSBN-740) - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 6, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> maybe but i want a supersonic bomber in sercive



I'd rather have stealthy loiter capability. Supersonic burns fuel like a mad dog, and the speed requirement minimizes ammo as even with internal weapons you must balance payload against fuel, space-wise.

When you couple subsonic stealth heavy-bombers with a radar-suppressive strike package, you get a long-range bomber that carries a lot of PGMs, can hang out to look for trouble, and deliver munitions with incredible accuracy.

And yeah, deterrence is best handled by SSBNs.


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 6, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I'd rather have stealthy loiter capability. Supersonic burns fuel like a mad dog, and the speed requirement minimizes ammo as even with internal weapons you must balance payload against fuel, space-wise.
> 
> When you couple subsonic stealth heavy-bombers with a radar-suppressive strike package, you get a long-range bomber that carries a lot of PGMs, can hang out to look for trouble, and deliver munitions with incredible accuracy.
> 
> And yeah, deterrence is best handled by SSBNs.


ill agree to disagree i still hold true to my idea


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 6, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> ill agree to disagree i still hold true to my idea



All good and well, but the marketplace doesn't seem to agree, and I'm not talking the thread here, but air forces. There are maybe five who could produce something like that now (US, Russia, China, UK, and France), but none of them see fit to. Wonder why? That old bugbear, the cost-benefit analysis.

I get where you're coming from, I really do. One of my favorite prop planes nowadays is the XF-12. I love it because it had great performance for its era and simply looks beautiful. However, like the XB-70, it was the last of its line precisely because it was supplanted by better equipment, or in the case of the XB-70, stuff with a better cost-benefit analysis

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 6, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> All good and well, but the marketplace doesn't seem to agree, and I'm not talking the thread here, but air forces. There are maybe five who could produce something like that now (US, Russia, China, UK, and France), but none of them see fit to. Wonder why? That old bugbear, the cost-benefit analysis.
> 
> I get where you're coming from, I really do. One of my favorite prop planes nowadays is the XF-12. I love it because it had great performance for its era and simply looks beautiful. However, like the XB-70, it was the last of its line precisely because it was supplanted by better equipment, or in the case of the XB-70, stuff with a better cost-benefit analysis


i just really like the xb-70 and hate it went out like it did


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 6, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> i just really like the xb-70 and hate it went out like it did



I love the Corsair, but everything in life has a shelf-life.

Except Cheez-Wiz.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 6, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I love the Corsair, but everything in life has a shelf-life.
> 
> Except Cheez-Wiz.


your not the only corsair lover i am too


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2021)

There is nothing wrong with loving a plane. That includes the XB-70. I think its cool as hell. It’s time is long since past though. That’s fact.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 7, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> There is nothing wrong with loving a plane. That includes the XB-70. I think its cool as hell. It’s time is long since past though. That’s fact.


ok i concede that but i love the xb-70 as much as i do the swing wing tomcat


----------



## soulezoo (Jul 7, 2021)

Now John Boyd is rolling in his grave.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## msxyz (Jul 8, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> maybe but i want a supersonic bomber in service



Here's the right plane for you then:







Fast (Mach 2.8+, though the airframe can survive at least Mach 3.2) and armed with an hypersonic standoff missile! Happy?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 8, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> misslles do no good if the grid is down and you cant lauch them


The deterrent forces use auxiliary generators and multiple, redundant communications channels. Also, SSBN are much more autonomous than a bomber could ever be.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 9, 2021)

Hey VA2154, check out the CF-105. That has always been a smoking hot "could of been".


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 9, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Hey VA2154, check out the CF-105. That has always been a smoking hot "could of been".


that the b-70 and the tsr 2

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 9, 2021)

msxyz said:


> Here's the right plane for you then:
> 
> View attachment 631578
> 
> ...


My money would have been on the YF-12...


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 9, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> My money would have been on the YF-12...


whats your opion on the the tu 160 nato reporting codename blackjack


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 10, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> whats your opion on the the tu 160 nato reporting codename blackjack


I think the Sukhoi T-4 was better...


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 10, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> I think the Sukhoi T-4 was better...


i like the 160 its not a bad bomber


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 10, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> i like the 160 its not a bad bomber


If you look closely, you'll find the Tu-160 is just a larger version of the B-1.
The Soviets built it in response to the B-1 program, so no coincidence.

But I still think the Soviets would.have been better off with the T-4.


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 10, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> If you look closely, you'll find the Tu-160 is just a larger version of the B-1.
> The Soviets built it in response to the B-1 program, so no coincidence.
> 
> But I still think the Soviets would.have been better off with the T-4.


i dont know the full history of the 160 so


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 10, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> i dont know the full history of the 160 so


I rarely recommend Wikipedia, but for a brief overview, I'll make an exception.

On the Tu-160:
Tupolev Tu-160 - Wikipedia

On the Sukhoi T-4:
Sukhoi T-4 - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 10, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> I rarely recommend Wikipedia, but for a brief overview, I'll make an exception.
> 
> On the Tu-160:
> Tupolev Tu-160 - Wikipedia
> ...


ill read those later right now im reading about boeing aircraft and im wondering if a mw2 style invaison is possible (theres a misson in mw2 where the russins knock out the sats and then attack the us )


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 10, 2021)

MW2...I'm not sure what that is.

I am familiar with Mechwarrior 2 (MW2) and Mechwarrior 3 (MW3) but those were set in the future...


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 10, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> MW2...I'm not sure what that is.
> 
> I am familiar with Mechwarrior 2 (MW2) and Mechwarrior 3 (MW3) but those were set in the future...


modern warfare 2 its part of the call of duty series(im also a gamer(


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> ill read those later right now im reading about boeing aircraft and im wondering if a mw2 style invaison is possible (theres a misson in mw2 where the russins knock out the sats and then attack the us )



If it ain’t Boeing, I ain’t going...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 10, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> modern warfare 2 its part of the call of duty series(im also a gamer(


Ohhh...ok.

Makes sense, now.


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 10, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> If it ain’t Boeing, I ain’t going...





GrauGeist said:


> Ohhh...ok.
> 
> Makes sense, now.


so do you think a modern warfare 2 style invasion is possible


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 10, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> so do you think a modern warfare 2 style invasion is possible


Well, remember our discussion about context?

You have to factor in things like numbers of both sides, both offensive and defensive.
Problem with sims is that they go for action without regard to logistics.


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 10, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Well, remember our discussion about context?
> 
> You have to factor in things like numbers of both sides, both offensive and defensive.
> Problem with sims is that they go for action without regard to logistics.


this is true call of duty is more action than history but i would say it would be with no sats to track them we could have a real red dawn on our hands


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 10, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> this is true call of duty is more action than history but i would say it would be with no sats to track them we could have a real red dawn on our hands


Not nessecarily - NORAD has been a first line of defense for decades.
The first sign of trouble and countermeasures would be activated.


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 10, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Not nessecarily - NORAD has been a first line of defense for decades.
> The first sign of trouble and countermeasures would be activated.


well i honesty think a call of duty style event could happen given the fact there would be not sats so by the time they got here wed be say how the heck did they go]et through


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 10, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> well i honesty think a call of duty style event could happen given the fact there would be not sats so by the time they got here wed be say how the heck did they go]et through


In reality, it can't happen.
The coverage by NORAD is insane - notice how F-18s or F-22s happen to suddenly appear alongside a Tu-95 when it approaches the U.S. coast?

Yeah...no surprises here.


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 10, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> In reality, it can't happen.
> The coverage by NORAD is insane - notice how F-18s or F-22s happen to suddenly appear alongside a Tu-95 when it approaches the U.S. coast?
> 
> Yeah...no surprises here.


speaking of that tell the russians to stop flying near alaska


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> speaking of that tell the russians to stop flying near alaska



They have been coming out here near Honolulu all last month. F-22’s out of Hickam kept going up to greet them.









US fighter jets respond to Russian planes flying towards Hawaii


Armed F-22 Raptor fighters scrambled in response to ‘Bear’ bombers




www.google.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 10, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> They have been coming out here near Honolulu all last month. F-22’s out of Hickam kept going up to greet them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i would shoot on sight thatll teach them


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> i would shoot on sight thatll teach them



Yeah, thats not how it works in the real world kid. Life is not a video game.

1. In real life people die. People with families and loved ones.

2. That is how wars are started.

3. The Russian bombers never entered US airspace. The closest they came was 12 miles. If some hot head shot down a Russian bomber over international airspace (a place they have every right to be.) do you realize what that would mean?

4. Do you think we don’t do the same to them? This is a cat and mouse game we have played since the cold war.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 10, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeah, thats not how it works in the real world kid. Life is not a video game.
> 
> 1. In real life people die. People with families and loved ones.
> 
> ...


idc i dont trust putin


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> idc i dont trust putin



It does not matter whether you care or not.


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 10, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It does not matter whether you care or not.


shoot them down


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2021)

I take it you are 14 or so right?


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 10, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I take it you are 14 or so right?


23


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> 23



No way. Impossible...


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 10, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No way. Impossible...


no serious born 10/04/1997 winston salem north carlonia


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2021)

God help us.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 10, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> no serious born 10/04/1997 winston salem north carlonia


i ju


DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> God help us.


why what did i do wrong


----------



## msxyz (Jul 10, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> My money would have been on the YF-12...


The internal missile bay was probably too small for air to ground ordnance.

The shape of the YF-12/SR-71 was really ahead of its time, though. A scaled down version with a frame capable of absorbing high Gs accelerations would make into a nice stealth fighter, too.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 10, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> If it ain’t Boeing, I ain’t going...


Gotta' get that t-shirt from the Boeing site. I was saving that line. You beat me to it!


----------



## 11bwmech (Jul 12, 2021)

HayateFan said:


> Very much in line with the UK's White Paper of April 1957.
> But in reality, even in a strategic situation, limiting yourself to only one type of weapon can lead to grave limitations, especially if your intended target happens to move. One of the reason ballistic missiles never completely replaced manned aircraft was for that kind of realization; the need to be more flexible than to simply point-and-shoot. Missiles have their niche, and are indeed needed, but they are not the end-all, be-all answer to every type of warfare, hence the current mixing of manned and unmanned weapons to deal with an array of situations.
> That being said, the B-1 definitely has an edge over the B-70. If one removes the benefits of missiles, the B-70 (or at the very least NAA's version of it) still had far too many limitations to really be a game-changer in aerial warfare. Speed was its biggest selling point, not it's weapons load or its versatility to do any other role except recon or high speed research in general. Its one of the most impressive aircraft to be built and flow, that's for sure. But it's scope was too narrowly set, and I think that was realized well before it flew. That, plus the cost of making it ensured it would never see widespread use (a fleet of 15-20 at most could have been justified, at most). The B-1 avoided this curse by being more flexible...It was fast at height (at least for the B-1A), but could also hit the deck and come screaming under the radar, and had a wider speed range in general. The B-70 had just one profile; high and fast. Overall, it wasn't missiles that doomed it, it was that it far too specialized to be of long term use. Maybe it couldn't be shot down because it was so fast and flew so high, but it was still easily detectable, plottable, and predictable, allowing for some countermeasures like moving the target of the area, meaning the bomber will strike an now worthless target.
> I like the XB-70, but not enough to think it was more useful than it really was.


I don't care even if it was totally worthless, to me it's the most beautiful aircraft ever built! A subjective viewpoint, to be sure, but them's my sentiments.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 12, 2021)

I understand. The B70 is a beautiful machine. Just not as beautiful as a B-17 B.


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 12, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I understand. The B70 is a beautiful machine. Just not as beautiful as a B-17 B.


the detla wing makes it more beauiful


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 12, 2021)

I like 'em curvy, kid.


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 12, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I like 'em curvy, kid.


the b70 the corsair and natalie decker all are beauifu;


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 12, 2021)

Am I arguing?


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 12, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Am I arguing?


no i just dont consider the b-17 to be beauiful


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 12, 2021)



Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 12, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


>


what its a good bomber but looks wise it big and lumbering like the lancaster


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 12, 2021)

Not at the moment of the Boeing 299's arrival. For its time it was an amazing piece of aeronautical engineering. Since you admire the ability of the B-70 to go faster than most fighters, the B-17 did just that too. For its time it was an aerodynamically clean airplane. Not quite the B-70 of its day but maybe close. 
Thing is, the more aircraft I learn about, the more planes I've come to appreciate. I have already stated I like the B-70. 

The Lanc is whole 'nother story.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Jul 12, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Not at the moment of the Boeing 299's arrival. For its time it was an amazing piece of aeronautical engineering. Since you admire the ability of the B-70 to go faster than most fighters, the B-17 did just that too. For its time it was an aerodynamically clean airplane. Not quite the B-70 of its day but maybe close.
> Thing is, the more aircraft I learn about, the more planes I've come to appreciate. I have already stated I like the B-70.
> 
> The Lanc is whole 'nother story.


the only good thing about the lanc is thr bomb load


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 12, 2021)

The Lanc was a highly capable bomber. What are you on?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 12, 2021)

It seems I'm on the spot.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 12, 2021)

The B-70 was a beauty, but so was the Avro Vulcan and Sukhoi T-4

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 12, 2021)

Vulcan be smokin'!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Jul 15, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> i would shoot on sight thatll teach them


The USAF also flies missions close to Russia, both sides have been doing that since the early cold war, everybody does it. The US and the UK (RAF) 
even used to penetrate Soviet borders.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Jul 15, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> idc i dont trust putin


I don't trust any leaders, especially the US leadership, look how many wars they have started since WW2. I can't remember them winning any, apart from Grenada, 20 years in Afghanistan and it is back where it started with the Taliban in control. compare that to Russia and China.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Jul 15, 2021)

11bwmech said:


> I don't care even if it was totally worthless, to me it's the most beautiful aircraft ever built! A subjective viewpoint, to be sure, but them's my sentiments.


I think Concorde looked better, plus it was able to carry 100 people down the back drinking champagne and eating oysters. Plus it managed to operate from 1969 to 2003 with only one accident.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 15, 2021)

wingnuts said:


> I don't trust any leaders, especially the US leadership, look how many wars they have started since WW2. I can't remember them winning any, apart from Grenada, 20 years in Afghanistan and it is back where it started with the Taliban in control. compare that to Russia and China.


May wish to rehink the "started wars" thing.
Korea was started by post wwii unrest between communist factions and Korean autonomy aspirations.
Vietnam started when the French tried to reclaim French Indochina.
The Gulf war was in response to Iraqi aggression in the region.

So please explain (in detail, if possible) how the U.S. "started" those wars.

Thanks in advance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Jul 15, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> May wish to rehink the "started wars" thing.
> Korea was started by post wwii unrest between communist factions and Korean autonomy aspirations.
> Vietnam started when the French tried to reclaim French Indochina.
> The Gulf war was in response to Iraqi aggression in the region.
> ...


The US did not "win" the Korean war, it was ended with an armistice, technically it has still not ended,....and it was a United Nations action. 

After Uncle Ho assisted the allies in the fight against Japan and was then betrayed when the British and US allowed the French back in. The US did not have to enter the Vietnam conflict, it started off with "advisors" and escalated and eventually withdrew after achieving nothing.

I admit the first Iraq war to liberate Kuwait was justified, although, until then Saddam Hussain had been backed and supplied by the US (in the war with Iran) until then. There was no justification for the second Iraq war as there was no evidence of WMDs and no Iraqis took part in 9/11, US forces are still there after 18 years.....after achieving nothing.

Same goes for Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya. 

There is no need to go into more detail, all the information is easily available online or at the library.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 19, 2021)

wingnuts said:


> The US did not "win" the Korean war, it was ended with an armistice, technically it has still not ended,....and it was a United Nations action.
> 
> After Uncle Ho assisted the allies in the fight against Japan and was then betrayed when the British and US allowed the French back in. The US did not have to enter the Vietnam conflict, it started off with "advisors" and escalated and eventually withdrew after achieving nothing.
> 
> ...



Right. So the US didn't start several of the wars you claim it started.


----------



## special ed (Jul 19, 2021)

I don't want to be political, only factual. when I point out there were WMD in Iraq before the invasion. When I reported to the USAF in 1959 WMD was defined as CBR. Chemical, Biological, and Radiological. I knew this before my mil service. The definition was re-titled by some whiz kid along the way to present day to: NBC, Nuclear, Biological, Chemical. The question: Did Iraq have Chemical weapons? Yes. Gas was used in the war with Iran and on their own citizens, the Kurds. If one paid attention to the news, new unused, stainless steel labs installed on trucks were shown at artillery sites. The reason: Serien gas has a shelf life of around six hours, so it must be mixed, loaded into the shells and fired soon to be effective. The TV quit showing these unused mobile labs when it was released they were German trucks (irony). Remember the preparations in Israel with gas masks. Yes again. Anthrax was found in the bunkers and was burned with other munitions to destroy it. Remember the troops who were sick later in the states who were near the fires. Nuclear, Radiological: certainty unproved but when the invasion began a large number of trucks exited Iraq to Syria with no customs controls. In just a few years after the war, Israel bombs a nuclear facility in Syria. As I recall, the Syrians didn't protest, the Russians said nothing, the announcement came from Israel. So there were at least two legs of WMD in Iraq.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 19, 2021)

special ed said:


> I don't want to be political, only factual. when I point out there were WMD in Iraq before the invasion. When I reported to the USAF in 1959 WMD was defined as CBR. Chemical, Biological, and Radiological. I knew this before my mil service. The definition was re-titled by some whiz kid along the way to present day to: NBC, Nuclear, Biological, Chemical. The question: Did Iraq have Chemical weapons? Yes. Gas was used in the war with Iran and on their own citizens, the Kurds. If one paid attention to the news, new unused, stainless steel labs installed on trucks were shown at artillery sites. The reason: Serien gas has a shelf life of around six hours, so it must be mixed, loaded into the shells and fired soon to be effective. The TV quit showing these unused mobile labs when it was released they were German trucks (irony). Remember the preparations in Israel with gas masks. Yes again. Anthrax was found in the bunkers and was burned with other munitions to destroy it. Remember the troops who were sick later in the states who were near the fires. Nuclear, Radiological: certainty unproved but when the invasion began a large number of trucks exited Iraq to Syria with no customs controls. In just a few years after the war, Israel bombs a nuclear facility in Syria. As I recall, the Syrians didn't protest, the Russians said nothing, the announcement came from Israel. So there were at least two legs of WMD in Iraq.


The Dutch military did find a stockpile of artillery shells loaded with nerve agents in Northern Iraq that had been prepped but quickly "stashed".
There were also the massive stockpiles of insecticide concentrate in 55 gallon drums at several Army bases.
It takes a mixture of less than a teaspoon of Malathion per 10 gallons of water, sprayed in a 12" wide line at the base of a building to create a barrier that will kill insects on contact such as cockroaches for up to three-four weeks in dry conditions.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Jul 19, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Right. So the US didn't start several of the wars you claim it started.


It started almost all of them and was very keen to get involved and was very keen to get involved.


----------



## wingnuts (Jul 19, 2021)

special ed said:


> I don't want to be political, only factual. when I point out there were WMD in Iraq before the invasion. When I reported to the USAF in 1959 WMD was defined as CBR. Chemical, Biological, and Radiological. I knew this before my mil service. The definition was re-titled by some whiz kid along the way to present day to: NBC, Nuclear, Biological, Chemical. The question: Did Iraq have Chemical weapons? Yes. Gas was used in the war with Iran and on their own citizens, the Kurds. If one paid attention to the news, new unused, stainless steel labs installed on trucks were shown at artillery sites. The reason: Serien gas has a shelf life of around six hours, so it must be mixed, loaded into the shells and fired soon to be effective. The TV quit showing these unused mobile labs when it was released they were German trucks (irony). Remember the preparations in Israel with gas masks. Yes again. Anthrax was found in the bunkers and was burned with other munitions to destroy it. Remember the troops who were sick later in the states who were near the fires. Nuclear, Radiological: certainty unproved but when the invasion began a large number of trucks exited Iraq to Syria with no customs controls. In just a few years after the war, Israel bombs a nuclear facility in Syria. As I recall, the Syrians didn't protest, the Russians said nothing, the announcement came from Israel. So there were at least two legs of WMD in Iraq.



The USA supplied chemical and possibly biological weapons to Saddam Hussain as part of their support for the Iraq war with Iran.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 19, 2021)

wingnuts said:


> It started almost all of them and was very keen to get involved and was very keen to get involved.



"Almost all"? You might want to check your math again. We didn't start Korea, Vietnam, first Iraq, second Iraq, (arguably) Afghanistan, Libya, or Syria.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 19, 2021)

Folks - let's stop the politics! Thank you!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 19, 2021)

wingnuts said:


> It started almost all of them and was very keen to get involved and was very keen to get involved.


You have zero clues about Korea - after Japan surrendered, Korea was divided in two zones at the 38th parallel.
The northern zone was under Soviet direction, the southern under U.S. direction.
In 1948, the southern half was declared a sovereign state: the Republic of Korea.
The north claimed the south was "stolen property" and invaded in June 1950.
The UN, not the US, formed the United Nations Command to repel the North Korean invasion.
This involved 22 nations under UN authority, which the U.S. was one of.

So again, No - the U.S. did not start the Korean war.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Jul 20, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> You have zero clues about Korea - after Japan surrendered, Korea was divided in two zones at the 38th parallel.
> The northern zone was under Soviet direction, the southern under U.S. direction.
> In 1948, the southern half was declared a sovereign state: the Republic of Korea.
> The north claimed the south was "stolen property" and invaded in June 1950.
> ...



I already pointed out it was a UN operation.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 20, 2021)

wingnuts said:


> I already pointed out it was a UN operation.


So where does this ^ fit in with this v then?


wingnuts said:


> It started almost all of them and was very keen to get involved and was very keen to get involved.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 20, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Folks - let's stop the politics! Thank you!


Oops...just saw this.
Not trying to be political, hope it didn't come across that way.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Oops...just saw this.
> Not trying to be political, hope it didn't come across that way.


You're good!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Jul 20, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> So where does this ^ fit in with this v then?


The word "almost" seems to cover it.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 20, 2021)

wingnuts said:


> The word "almost" seems to cover it.


"Almost" only applies to Horseshoes, hand-grenades and nuclear warfare.

In regards to the conversation, there was no "almost" to all points presented, but rather "none".

I should also point out that Joe made it clear that the thread should get back on track

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Jul 20, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> "Almost all"? You might want to check your math again. We didn't start Korea, Vietnam, first Iraq, second Iraq, (arguably) Afghanistan, Libya, or Syria.


The US did not have to get involved with the war in Vietnam, the French had given up. I agree with the first Iraq war to liberate Kuwait as I already mentioned. There was no reason to go back a time and no reason to invade Afghanistan and Syria and destabilise Libya, not of these wars (Afghanistan Libya Syria and Iraq) could be classed as "won" and none of the countries can be said to be in a better condition now than before the US got involved.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2021)

wingnuts said:


> The US did not have to get involved with the war in Vietnam, the French had given up. I agree with the first Iraq war to liberate Kuwait as I already mentioned. There was no reason to go back a time and no reason to invade Afghanistan and Syria and destabilise Libya, not of these wars (Afghanistan Libya Syria and Iraq) could be classed as "won" and none of the countries can be said to be in a better condition now than before the US got involved.


ENOUGH!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 20, 2021)

Glad I read further. Apologies for my part in it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dronescapes (Aug 27, 2022)



Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 6, 2022)

Capt. Vick said:


> The both XB-70's did have bomb bays, though they were both filled with test equipment. The bomb bay door slid forward or aft, I can't remember.


The bomb-bays were located between the engine inlet ducts. They translated aft prior to weapons release.



VA5124 said:


> misslles do no good if the grid is down and you cant lauch them


ICBM facilities have their own power systems and are faraday-caged to withstand EMP's (after all, they are designed to work in nuclear war). 

The Minuteman was designed in the 1960's and the newest versions (Minuteman III) went online in 1970, and was updated in the late 1990's or early 2000's with technology that looks like it was from the late 1980's or early 1990's. Though some made jokes about it's dependence on 8" floppy-disks, it'll still launch the missile, and it's damned near hack-proof.

There was an interview of a Minuteman III crew and, when the issue of the primitive technology came up the crew-commander actually pointed out they had security through antiquity (something that does show a degree of intelligence).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 6, 2022)

Zipper730 said:


> There was an interview of a Minuteman III crew and, when the issue of the primitive technology came up the crew-commander actually pointed out they had security through antiquity (something that does show a degree of intelligence).


That is a good point, actually.

My '62 Nova is not military hardware, of course, but in the event of an EMP, it will still operate because of it's coil driven breaker/point ignition.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 8, 2022)

Wait, I thought the sparkplugs and magnetos would be fried by an EMP?


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 8, 2022)

Zipper730 said:


> Wait, I thought the sparkplugs and magnetos would be fried by an EMP?


Negative.

There are no semiconductors or processors to be killed.

An ignition coil is nothing more than a massive coil of copper wire (hence it's name) and current flowing through the coil builds up a massive charge that's interrupted when the distributor's contact points open, the charge at that moment, is directed by the roter in the distributor cap making contact with the intended spark plug wire. The result is that particular spark plug firing.

There is no magnetic field to be interrupted in that system

A modern alternator *may* be affected, depending on the type of diodes used and if the vehicle's voltage regulator has been replaced with a modern solid state type, that too would be affected.

My '62 Nova has the old Delcotron alternator and an airgap regulator, which would be unaffected.

My car's Kenwood stereo, on the otherhand, would be toast and that would really make me angry...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------

