space dodo
Airman 1st Class
if the valkyrie had not forgone that fatal collision with the F-104, would there have been no need for the lancer ?
Last edited:
XB-70 valkyrie vs B-1B lancer
- Thread starter space dodo
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
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.
GreenKnight121
Senior Airman
- 598
- Mar 16, 2014
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
As long as we're here, did the XB-70 have a bomb bay or was it just a proof of concept type?
- Thread starter
- #8
space dodo
Airman 1st Class
for the current debate were going to assume it had a bomb bay but idk if the proof of concept had one
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
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
Captain
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.
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
Wunderwaffen!
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Well I can tell you your thinking is about 60 years out dated
maybe but i want a supersonic bomber in sercive
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Well your testosteronal desire.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
