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.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.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.
the detla wing makes it more beauifulI understand. The B70 is a beautiful machine. Just not as beautiful as a B-17 B.
the b70 the corsair and natalie decker all are beauifu;I like 'em curvy, kid.
no i just dont consider the b-17 to be beauifulAm I arguing?
what its a good bomber but looks wise it big and lumbering like the lancaster
the only good thing about the lanc is thr bomb loadNot 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 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)i would shoot on sight thatll teach them
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.idc i dont trust putin
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.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.
May wish to rehink the "started wars" thing.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.
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.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.