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:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Very much in line with the UK's White Paper of April 1957.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.
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.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.
As long as we're here, did the XB-70 have a bomb bay or was it just a proof of concept type?
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.
Why is this in a WW2 forum?
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"?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
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 outWhy 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"?
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.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
im sorry its just my opinon i would perfer to have a b-70 style bomberYou 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.
Well I can tell you your thinking is about 60 years out datedim sorry its just my opinon i would perfer to have a b-70 style bomber
maybe but i want a supersonic bomber in serciveWell I can tell you your thinking is about 60 years out dated
Well your testosteronal desire.maybe but i want a supersonic bomber in sercive