Bomber: Flop or Not

[pbehn]

Tell me this then, Where was the XB-70's bomb bay ???

It is now in Mumbai.

 

[Shortround6]

Some aircraft, Like F-106s lowered the missiles into the airflow before launch.

rather high drag but then you had high speed airflow over the fins and control surfaces as the motor ignited. Missile wasn't going to perform some crazy gyration as it left a weapons bay.
Some planes used spoilers in front of the bomb bay. some didn't give much in details.

 

[Zipper730]

Tell me this then, Where was the XB-70's bomb bay ???

The bomb bay is located roughly in between the air intakes

 

[tyrodtom]

To answer my own question about the bomb bay, it well to the rear of the intakes, centered between the six engines.

I don't think they spend much design time on the bomb bay, or it's use. Early in the design phase of the XB-70 they knew a mission at the speeds and altitude it would attain was not likely to succeed, so it was turned into a high speed research aircraft to gather information for the USA version of the SST.

 

[vikingBerserker]

I believe there were one or two inline center, starting not too far behind the front landing gear.

 

[Graeme]

This area?

What's that "ramp" seen in these shots?....

 

[Graeme]

I don't think they spend much design time on the bomb bay, or it's use.

That's what I'm reading - for these test vehicles the area designed for the bomb-bay was dedicated to monitoring equipment.

 

[Zipper730]

To answer my own question about the bomb bay, it well to the rear of the intakes, centered between the six engines.

I should have said "inlet", as that would have been more accurate (the inlet was quite long)

I don't think they spend much design time on the bomb bay, or it's use. Early in the design phase of the XB-70 they knew a mission at the speeds and altitude it would attain was not likely to succeed, so it was turned into a high speed research aircraft to gather information for the USA version of the SST.

It's a bit more complicated than that...

• There seemed to be an excessive concern about the SA-2 Guideline after Gary Powers was shot down: Some believed that it would make all our bombers obsolete in the high altitude role
• This mentality was not shared by all in the USAF and RAF to at least 1962 (I can go into additional detail if you would wish)
• The B-70A would have had better jammers than the B-52, and considerably higher speed, it's maximum maneuverability likely would have been better as well due to some comments about testing for low altitude, subsonic flights (I'm not sure if the bomb-nav system would tumble during these maneuvers ironically)
• The engines of the aircraft (mentioned in a book about the B-70), as well as the inlet design (mentioned by the A/C's chief engineer) were rated not to mach 3, but mach 4 which would have made it far more difficult to intercept than many would be lead to believe, and I'm not sure who knew what (There are security clearances higher than the President of the United States, as well as the fact that LeMay had actively tried to keep the SIOP from the President), which would have affected decision making
• Some were also concerned that the USSR would, like us, attempt to develop nuclear-tipped SAM's

The fact that the aircraft had a lenticular missile-defense system (basically it's a disc shaped missile), with at least test-concepts achieving 250g by the time Mach 3 would be reached (and that's not a typo), and actual designs said to have at least half the turning circle as current missiles (at speed), it would have likely had the means to destroy quite a number of missiles sent it's way (which at the time would have been more a threat than the fighters).

This area?

View attachment 485785

That's it!

 

[tyrodtom]

The B-70 program was cancelled 3 years BEFORE the XB-70's first flight.
As it was just a little over 250 hours flight time logged by both examples together.
Most of what you're stating is theory only, not tested in real flight.

The Francis Gary Powers episode is well known to me, he's from my home town, my older brother went to school with him, his family's home is about 4 miles away.
I lived thru that drama when I was 13.

 

[swampyankee]

The B-70 was also butting into the simple fact that ICBMs and SLBMs were quite capable of performing the nuclear bombardment role. I also strongly suspect that the two marketing points for manned bombers -- the potential for recall and the ability to find and attack "hidden command centers" -- were largely illusory.

 

[Zipper730]

The B-70 program was cancelled 3 years BEFORE the XB-70's first flight.

Correct, however many of the things that slowed down it's development and entry into service had to do with a desire to avoid excessive military spending

• The USAF for it's B-52 replacement alone effectively procured two aircraft instead of one: WS-110 & WS-125
  • WS-110 would become the B-70
  • WS-125 was a nuclear-powered supersonic bomber
  • Cost was estimated at $3.9 billion
  • While WS-110 would have been more expensive had it been pursued alone because some of the same bomb/nav systems were incorporated: The fact is that fundamentally, WS-110 by itself would cost way less than both together
• The nuclear powered bomber was felt to not be particularly feasible, and this changed ultimately because of a mention in Flight magazine about speculations about the development of Soviet nuclear powered planes (which turned out to be untrue): I honestly think somebody in either the USAF or AEC made it all up and leaked it to them for the following reasons.
  • AEC managed the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion (ANC) program along with the USAF
  • The USAF wanted a supersonic nuclear program
  • If evidence came up that the Russians are producing a nuclear powered bomber, we have to do it (even if it's not necessary for our needs) simply because the Cold War was about economic systems instead of simply military matters. The Cold War might very well have been the biggest and most expensive penis-waving contest in human history
• The US Navy had some supersonic bomber designs as well
  • The A3J/A-5 Vigilante: Entered service, albeit only as a reconnaissance aircraft. I would say the USN profited pretty handsomely off that one as the RA-5C could still deliver nuclear ordinance
  • The P6M Sea-Master: It's ability to fly at Mach 0.89 a few hundred feet off the deck, as well as operate off water gave it some good odds of getting through (better than the B-47 and B-52, almost as good as the B-58, arguably better in some ways).
  • Nuclear-powered P6M Derivative: It was a different aircraft, and somewhat larger than the baseline design. I'm not sure if it retained the ability to fly at 0.9 down-low or the same 6g strength (technically the P6M was rated for 3.8 x 1.5, but it was looped at 6g once), but the incredible range presented by nuclear power seems more useful down-low than up high.
  • A supersonic, conventionally powered flying boat: There seemed to be some designs, at least one which had a similar inlet and wedge splitter to the XB-70, but upside down, with swept wings, and up-turned wingtips; after takeoff, the aircraft would execute a half roll and the nose would be allowed... basically it would turn right-side up with the cockpit where it is and basically be a mini XB-70 in flight
  • A supersonic, nuclear-powered flying-boat: I'm not sure how fast it was, but it was nuclear-powered

The expenditures were reaching pathological proportions (truthfully, they probably reached pathological levels well before this point), and with each new-generation aircraft becoming increasingly more expensive than it's predecessor (it didn't matter, it seemed what type), one could only expect to fork over even more the next time around...

I think they were looking for ANYTHING that would break this cycle and they saw the ICBM and cruise missiles as good alternatives. Some might very well have seen bombers as genuinely out-dated, but expenditures seemed to definitely sour things quite a bit.

Most of what you're stating is theory only

In what ways?

The Francis Gary Powers episode is well known to me

Okay

The B-70 was also butting into the simple fact that ICBMs and SLBMs were quite capable of performing the nuclear bombardment role.

Most importantly, they were cheaper!

I also strongly suspect that the two marketing points for manned bombers -- the potential for recall and the ability to find and attack "hidden command centers" -- were largely illusory.

How was the ability for recall illusory?

 

[swampyankee]

Correct, however many of the things that slowed down it's development and entry into service had to do with a desire to avoid excessive military spending

• The USAF for it's B-52 replacement alone effectively procured two aircraft instead of one: WS-110 & WS-125
  • WS-110 would become the B-70
  • WS-125 was a nuclear-powered supersonic bomber
  • Cost was estimated at $3.9 billion
  • While WS-110 would have been more expensive had it been pursued alone because some of the same bomb/nav systems were incorporated: The fact is that fundamentally, WS-110 by itself would cost way less than both together
• The nuclear powered bomber was felt to not be particularly feasible, and this changed ultimately because of a mention in Flight magazine about speculations about the development of Soviet nuclear powered planes (which turned out to be untrue): I honestly think somebody in either the USAF or AEC made it all up and leaked it to them for the following reasons.
  • AEC managed the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion (ANC) program along with the USAF
  • The USAF wanted a supersonic nuclear program
  • If evidence came up that the Russians are producing a nuclear powered bomber, we have to do it (even if it's not necessary for our needs) simply because the Cold War was about economic systems instead of simply military matters. The Cold War might very well have been the biggest and most expensive penis-waving contest in human history
• The US Navy had some supersonic bomber designs as well
  • The A3J/A-5 Vigilante: Entered service, albeit only as a reconnaissance aircraft. I would say the USN profited pretty handsomely off that one as the RA-5C could still deliver nuclear ordinance
  • The P6M Sea-Master: It's ability to fly at Mach 0.89 a few hundred feet off the deck, as well as operate off water gave it some good odds of getting through (better than the B-47 and B-52, almost as good as the B-58, arguably better in some ways).
  • Nuclear-powered P6M Derivative: It was a different aircraft, and somewhat larger than the baseline design. I'm not sure if it retained the ability to fly at 0.9 down-low or the same 6g strength (technically the P6M was rated for 3.8 x 1.5, but it was looped at 6g once), but the incredible range presented by nuclear power seems more useful down-low than up high.
  • A supersonic, conventionally powered flying boat: There seemed to be some designs, at least one which had a similar inlet and wedge splitter to the XB-70, but upside down, with swept wings, and up-turned wingtips; after takeoff, the aircraft would execute a half roll and the nose would be allowed... basically it would turn right-side up with the cockpit where it is and basically be a mini XB-70 in flight
  • A supersonic, nuclear-powered flying-boat: I'm not sure how fast it was, but it was nuclear-powered

The expenditures were reaching pathological proportions (truthfully, they probably reached pathological levels well before this point), and with each new-generation aircraft becoming increasingly more expensive than it's predecessor (it didn't matter, it seemed what type), one could only expect to fork over even more the next time around...

I think they were looking for ANYTHING that would break this cycle and they saw the ICBM and cruise missiles as good alternatives. Some might very well have seen bombers as genuinely out-dated, but expenditures seemed to definitely sour things quite a bit.
In what ways?
Okay

Most importantly, they were cheaper!
How was the ability for recall illusory?

I as said, I suspect it was illusory, mostly because this does not seem to fit with the general, irrefutable nature of retaliation that MAD requires. There are also, alas, no checks-and-balances on the nuclear launch codes.

 

[Zipper730]

I as said, I suspect it was illusory, mostly because this does not seem to fit with the general, irrefutable nature of retaliation that MAD requires.

Far as I know there were means to recall the bombers.

There are also, alas, no checks-and-balances on the nuclear launch codes

What do you mean?

 

[swampyankee]

Far as I know there were means to recall the bombers.

I don't doubt that there are; I'm just not sure they'd work.

What do you mean?

Just what I said: president says go, they launch. Of this, I was told by a former naval person whose assignments included ships with nuclear weapons.

 

[tyrodtom]

SAC had various programs from sometimes in the late 50s to late 60s, Chrome Dome, Head Start, etc., where bombers flew long missions in a race track patterns just outside of Soviet territory, being refueled to stay aloft maybe even 20 hours or more. If they received no coded message to proceed across the border for a strike they returned to base, after being replaced by another B-52.

Now if they had received that coded message to cross the border for a nuclear strike on Russia, They may or may not have been a way to recall them. Any crew receiving the go ahead would at that point consider there to be a war already started, and any recall notice would be suspected as a Russian trick.

 

[Shortround6]

This is also pre-satellite communication (except for a few experiments) and so even at high altitude you would need airborne radio relay aircraft or low frequency radios to follow the earth's curvature, and you are going to have to contend with some pretty powerful jamming signals being thrown out on a variety of frequencies just on general principals.

 

[Graeme]

• The nuclear powered bomber was felt to not be particularly feasible, and this changed ultimately because of a mention in Flight magazine about speculations about the development of Soviet nuclear powered planes (which turned out to be untrue): I honestly think somebody in either the USAF or AEC made it all up and leaked it to them for the following reasons.

Flight or the December '58 edition of Aviation Week? Browsing the net there's a different scenario out there - the US DoD fed the magazine bullshit, because well, they didn't like them...

 

[Graeme]

But then there were a lot of unsubstantiated claims and flag-waving in the magazines from that era of the Cold War...

 

[Zipper730]

Just what I said: president says go, they launch. Of this, I was told by a former naval person whose assignments included ships with nuclear weapons.

Okay

SAC had various programs from sometimes in the late 50s to late 60s, Chrome Dome, Head Start, etc., where bombers flew long missions in a race track patterns just outside of Soviet territory, being refueled to stay aloft maybe even 20 hours or more. If they received no coded message to proceed across the border for a strike they returned to base, after being replaced by another B-52.

Now if they had received that coded message to cross the border for a nuclear strike on Russia, They may or may not have been a way to recall them. Any crew receiving the go ahead would at that point consider there to be a war already started, and any recall notice would be suspected as a Russian trick.

Even one with proper code?

This is also pre-satellite communication (except for a few experiments) and so even at high altitude you would need airborne radio relay aircraft or low frequency radios to follow the earth's curvature, and you are going to have to contend with some pretty powerful jamming signals being thrown out on a variety of frequencies just on general principals.

So even if a recall command was made, nobody would pick it up...

Flight or the December '58 edition of Aviation Week? Browsing the net there's a different scenario out there - the US DoD fed the magazine bullshit, because well, they didn't like them...

But then there were a lot of unsubstantiated claims and flag-waving in the magazines from that era of the Cold War...

So it could have been both a plan to discredit them, and also a way to justify a political goal?

 

[tyrodtom]

When it comes to espionage you're never sure what your enemy can and cannot do.
I was a teenager, and young adult, during the late 50s and 60s, but a civilian and then low ranking enlisted man.
People that I was around seem to think the Soviets were supermen when it come to getting to our innermost secrets.
If we were right or wrong no one's ever likely going to know.
What the actual crews flying these SAC bombers thought on this subject , at that time ?

I wish someone with more specific knowledge on this phase of SAC's procedures ( recall of SAC bombers AFTER they'd received a nuclear mission order) would comment.
Was it possible ?