Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Aviation set back 20 years when we didnt build the B-70

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • mig-31bm
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Oct 2013
    • 2110

    #41
    USAF did test their F-15 with mach 3, 80K ft target, so i think Russian done similar thing

    Comment

    • logical1
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Dec 2012
      • 160

      #42
      Originally posted by BarnesW View Post
      I was pointing out that the third prototype flew at Mach 3+ for sustained periods successfully, so they did overcome the technology hurdle but it was rejected as a reliable delivery method, due to changes in air defence and ballistic missile technology.
      Make that GUESSES in missile technology. I submit that if the slow lumbering B-52 is still considered a viable war plane, why wouldnt one that could fly more that half again higher, and 4 times as fast. It could arrive on near scene at mach 3 deploy cruise missiles and fly home.

      Comment

      • BarnesW
        Senior Member
        • Aug 2015
        • 503

        #43
        Originally posted by sandiego89 View Post
        Barnes, only 2 XB-70's were completed. The third was no where near complete. Total MACH 3 flight time (over 9-10 flights) was only 1 hour 48 minutes- TOTAL. https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/...S-084-DFRC.pdf

        I too disagree with the 20 year set-back of this thread. An operational B-70 would have been a nightmare to sustain, and would have likely had a similair fate to the near peer B-58- limited, expensive and short lived- and the B-70 was magnitudes more complex than the Hustler.
        IIRC one crossed the Atlantic and sustained Mach 3.05 average for 32 minutes and topped out at Mach 3.1 completing a 2,400 mile journey in 91 minutes including take-off and landing, which average out at Mach 2.4 even including subsonic time during landing and take-off and acceleration/deceleration.
        Last edited by BarnesW; 22nd October 2015, 19:42.

        Comment

        • FalconDude
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Sep 2010
          • 1172

          #44
          I'm just gonna go out and state the obvious here.

          If you're crossing the Russian borders with bombers that means only one thing.
          Having said that, he B-52 has other qualities which any Mach 3 bomber would not have. Unless you maintain flying at M3 20 meters above the ground!

          And although I admire the tenacity of some people to reject reality and substitute their own, no, an M 3 bomber flying high would not be impervious to air defences. Actually it is pretty damn certain it would die a fiery death.

          Comment

          • MSphere
            Senior Member
            • Feb 2010
            • 8983

            #45
            Originally posted by mig-31bm View Post
            i can accept that Mig-31 can intercept SR-71 but to say it can intercept something fly at mach 6, 25000 m and turning 12 G sound like BS propaganda to be honest
            You're not reading it correctly. It says it can intercept something flying at up to M6.0.. or something else flying at up to 25,000 m (82,000 ft).. or something else turning up to 12g.. No one says it can intercept something doing all these things at once.. Not that there is such thing, anyway...
            Last edited by MSphere; 22nd October 2015, 22:57.

            Comment

            • MadRat
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Aug 2006
              • 5032

              #46
              I won't pretend the B-70 was affordable, but think for a second what an updated B-70B would have been by 1985. Internal rotary launcher integrated for SRAM, ALCM, and freefall Paveways. Large enough to carry some pretty impressive loads. GBU-15. JDAM. Retaliation on Al Qaeda in 2003 from 80K feet and out of sight. Tip of the Spear attacking airbases over Iraq. Probably so dangerous that there would be no hesitation to drop bombs on Iran's deep underground facilities.

              The downside, the program would have been as costly as the B-2A. Probably similar build count of a couple dozen at most.
              Go Huskers!

              Comment

              • MSphere
                Senior Member
                • Feb 2010
                • 8983

                #47
                Originally posted by MadRat View Post
                I won't pretend the B-70 was affordable, but think for a second what an updated B-70B would have been by 1985. Internal rotary launcher integrated for SRAM, ALCM, and freefall Paveways. Large enough to carry some pretty impressive loads. GBU-15. JDAM. Retaliation on Al Qaeda in 2003 from 80K feet and out of sight. Tip of the Spear attacking airbases over Iraq. Probably so dangerous that there would be no hesitation to drop bombs on Iran's deep underground facilities.
                1. If you need a SRAM or ALCM carrier, then a B-70 is pointless. B-1A was cancelled, too..
                2. Why would you need to bomb Al Qaeda from over 80k feet is beyond me Did they even have shoulder-fired SAM?
                3. The same way I don't think that the hesitation to drop bombs on Iran had anything to do with lack of trust in capabilities of B-2A or BGM-109. It was politically undesirable, plain and simple.

                Comment

                • BIGVERN1966
                  steely eyed missile man
                  • Jan 2006
                  • 1220

                  #48
                  Well it's easy to compute the interception of an SR-71 "down to the last second" if you already know the time and route of the of the spyplanes's arrival (as they did for many SR-71s flying off the Kola Peninsula). Captain Myagkiy can say what he likes about his aircraft and missiles' capabilities against the SR-71 - but I ask one question: has the captain ever seen, or ever met someone who has seen, a MiG-31 shoot down a Mach 3 target? BTW, plenty of US military pilots may certainly practice a lot of wishful thinking when it comes to the abilities of the F-35 - that doesn't necessarily mean all of this wishful thinking is true, though.
                  In the case of the SR-71 v Mig 25 / 31, a Mig 25 successfully got an intercept well within the AA-6's no escape zone on an SR-71 over the Baltic during the 1980s and was seen to do so by a NATO long range radar located in West Berlin. B-70 was canned because there were cheaper ways and more efficeve ways of doing its mission (ICBM, SLBM, B-52 at low level, Etc.)
                  TWIN RAMJET POWERED MONOPLANE FIXER 1985 - 1989

                  Comment

                  • Sundog
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Jul 2003
                    • 185

                    #49
                    Originally posted by logical1 View Post
                    Check out how many missiles were shot at the SR-71, and note that NOT ONE ever hit it!!!

                    Add the fact that the SR-71 only had regular wing lift, and the B-70 had compression lift that would make it more manuverable at extreme altitude.
                    No, it wouldn't. That has to do with the L/D ratio. It made it efficient at cruise. The design load of the XB-70 wasn't much different from the SR-71's and at those speeds, you don't add a lot of load on the airframe. Maneuverability at MACH 3 is something of an oxymoron.

                    Comment

                    • Robbiesmurf
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Jul 2014
                      • 587

                      #50
                      Originally posted by logical1 View Post
                      Check out how many missiles were shot at the SR-71, and note that NOT ONE ever hit it!!!

                      Add the fact that the SR-71 only had regular wing lift, and the B-70 had compression lift that would make it more manuverable at extreme altitude.
                      True but one A12 was actually struck by a piece of a salvo of missiles. They found it embedded in the structure when it landed after the mission..
                      One of the problems with the A12/SR71 with turns was unstarts. It took them quite a while to fix that.

                      Comment

                      • logical1
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Dec 2012
                        • 160

                        #51
                        Originally posted by Levsha View Post
                        Both the F-22 and MiG-31 have many times shot down targets flying at various speeds and at various altitiudes - have you never heard of target drones? But I don't recall either aircraft attempting to shoot down targets flying at Mach 3.2 and flying at 80,000 feet, have you? It's all about making credible statements, and providing credible evidence to back them up. Incredible claims need incredible evidence to support them.



                        Why would the Soviets design and put into production and service an aircraft in 1972 (MiG-25), to counter an aircraft which was completely cancelled in 1962 (B-70)? That doesn't make sense. Maybe the Soviet PVO put the MiG-25 into service because it's a far more effective aircraft at intercepting most aircraft than either the Yak- and Tu-28. An intercepter than can supercruise to its subsonic target at Mach 2.0 is a useful aircraft to have, perhaps?
                        But the question is-----------were the target drones able to turn at high altitude like a B-70 with their huge wing area, and compression lift? The other point is that during these test, they knew where and when the target drones would be flying.

                        Comment

                        • logical1
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Dec 2012
                          • 160

                          #52
                          Originally posted by BIGVERN1966 View Post
                          In the case of the SR-71 v Mig 25 / 31, a Mig 25 successfully got an intercept well within the AA-6's no escape zone on an SR-71 over the Baltic during the 1980s and was seen to do so by a NATO long range radar located in West Berlin. B-70 was canned because there were cheaper ways and more efficeve ways of doing its mission (ICBM, SLBM, B-52 at low level, Etc.)
                          Pretty hard to recall an ICBM once fired.

                          Comment

                          • logical1
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Dec 2012
                            • 160

                            #53
                            Originally posted by Sundog View Post
                            No, it wouldn't. That has to do with the L/D ratio. It made it efficient at cruise. The design load of the XB-70 wasn't much different from the SR-71's and at those speeds, you don't add a lot of load on the airframe. Maneuverability at MACH 3 is something of an oxymoron.
                            So if maneuverability is is an oxymoron for a B-70 with a huge wing, and compression lift, it not for a missile with small fins?

                            Comment

                            • sandiego89
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Feb 2008
                              • 354

                              #54
                              Originally posted by BarnesW View Post
                              IIRC one crossed the Atlantic and sustained Mach 3.05 average for 32 minutes and topped out at Mach 3.1 completing a 2,400 mile journey in 91 minutes including take-off and landing, which average out at Mach 2.4 even including subsonic time during landing and take-off and acceleration/deceleration.
                              Sounds like you are referring to Flight#39 with the second airframe, conducted on May 19, 1966. Believe this was the longest sustained fast flight. For clarification I believe the XB-70's almost exclusively flew out of Edwards and Palmdale (one trip to Carsewell AFB I believe and the one way delivery flight to the USAF museum) so I doubt she got anywhere near the Atlantic, much less "crossed" it.

                              Makes you appreciate the A-12/SR-71 which could sustain M3+ for longer periods.

                              Comment

                              • swerve
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Jun 2005
                                • 13612

                                #55
                                Originally posted by logical1 View Post
                                So if maneuverability is is an oxymoron for a B-70 with a huge wing, and compression lift, it not for a missile with small fins?
                                A missile doesn't have to worry about killing the crew. Look up how many g an AAM or SAM pulls.
                                Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                                Justinian

                                Comment

                                • TooCool_12f
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Dec 2009
                                  • 3323

                                  #56
                                  Originally posted by logical1 View Post
                                  But the question is-----------were the target drones able to turn at high altitude like a B-70 with their huge wing area, and compression lift? The other point is that during these test, they knew where and when the target drones would be flying.
                                  Forget it, @ M3.0 and 70000ft you'd have hard time pulling even 2 G's with the B-70 (and if you tried your aircraft and your speed would drop like a stone anyway...). Any "turn" is a barely bent straight line and any missile with sufficient energy to reach you will be able to intercept you .

                                  Comment

                                  • Sintra
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Aug 2007
                                    • 3851

                                    #57
                                    Originally posted by logical1 View Post
                                    Make that GUESSES in missile technology. I submit that if the slow lumbering B-52 is still considered a viable war plane, why wouldnt one that could fly more that half again higher, and 4 times as fast.
                                    Because its CPFH would rival the equivalent hourly cost of the USS Gerald Ford?

                                    I'll get me coat...

                                    Cheers
                                    sigpic

                                    Comment

                                    • Levsha
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Jan 2006
                                      • 2856

                                      #58
                                      At 70,000 feet the air is probaly too thin for a guided missile to turn effectively. At the SR-71's altitude - 85,000 feet - guided missiles probably don't turn very well at all. Let's not forget as well, that both the B-70 and SR-71 carried extremely powerful electronic countermeasures - you can speculate yourself how effective this ECM might have been.

                                      In the case of the SR-71 v Mig 25 / 31, a Mig 25 successfully got an intercept well within the AA-6's no escape zone on an SR-71 over the Baltic during the 1980s and was seen to do so by a NATO long range radar located in West Berlin. B-70 was canned because there were cheaper ways and more efficeve ways of doing its mission (ICBM, SLBM, B-52 at low level, Etc.)
                                      Again, an alleged successful intercept due to the SR-71's flight plan being quite well known. Hell, even the Swedish air force they got a successful intercept of spyplane over the Baltic with their SAAB Viggens.
                                      Last edited by Levsha; 23rd October 2015, 13:55.

                                      Comment

                                      • BarnesW
                                        Senior Member
                                        • Aug 2015
                                        • 503

                                        #59
                                        Originally posted by mig-31bm View Post
                                        i can accept that Mig-31 can intercept SR-71 but to say it can intercept something fly at mach 6, 25000 m and turning 12 G sound like BS propaganda to be honest
                                        Well I'm quoting Combat Aircraft directly. Obviously I haven't conducted personal tests. They state the R-37M can intercept targets at Mach 6/25,000m/8g and the R-77-1 at 25,000m/12g. Mach 3.2 drones are shot down routinely during testing.

                                        Comment

                                        • Dr Strangelove
                                          Doktor Merkwrdigliebe
                                          • May 2008
                                          • 1384

                                          #60
                                          Built the AMT kit of the XB70 a number of years back, struck by its futuristic design, wonderful looking aeroplane.

                                          One thing I do recall thinking, is the fun taxying this beast would've been, seeing how far the nose leg is behind the c0ckpit.
                                          Sometimes it's better to be a bumblebee than it is to be Professor Heinkel.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X