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
    replied
    Originally posted by BarnesW View Post
    I believe they're both in service now on the MiG-31BM and MiG-31M. But the R-33S (ARH version of R-33) is also stated to have the same capability as R-37M as regards speed/altitude/g but not range.

    This is the drone.

    i think USA similar counterpart is the AQM-37 , dont know what the European or Chinese use though

    Leave a comment:


  • mig-31bm
    replied
    Originally posted by BarnesW View Post
    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.
    i know you get it from a book , but that doesn't mean it isn't BS
    mach 6 is even faster than many ballistic missiles ( EX : Scud ), then the target also pull 8G , and fly at 25 km ( > 80K ft ) , there is nothing at the moment can even achieved that feat
    Originally posted by swerve View Post
    A missile doesn't have to worry about killing the crew. Look up how many g an AAM or SAM pulls.
    it true that missiles doesnt have to worry about crew , at low altitude missiles fly much higher speed than aircraft , that will give missiles enough lift to counter the effect of small fin , however , at high altitude , the air is very thin so your missiles would be lucky to be even able to turn ( especially since SAM , AAM dont fly much faster than XB-70 while have much less wing area , if the XB-70 can only sustain 2-3 G , i really doubt that missiles can change direction )

    Leave a comment:


  • BarnesW
    replied
    Originally posted by sandiego89 View Post
    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.
    To execute a 91 minute flight covering 2,400 miles, it's speed couldn't have been much off M3.0 at anytime between the take-off and landing phase. Over a 3,500 mile jorney a concorde averaged 1,000mph (M1.5), with a Mach 2.02 average cruise, the XB-70 averaged 1,600mph (M2.4) over 2,400 miles.
    Last edited by BarnesW; 23rd October 2015, 14:26.

    Leave a comment:


  • BarnesW
    replied
    Originally posted by Levsha View Post
    These are new missiles, in fact, I don't think they are in service yet. SR-71 was finally retired 16 years ago.



    Could you tell us more about this?
    I believe they're both in service now on the MiG-31BM and MiG-31M. But the R-33S (ARH version of R-33) is also stated to have the same capability as R-37M as regards speed/altitude/g but not range.

    This is the drone.

    Last edited by BarnesW; 23rd October 2015, 14:18.

    Leave a comment:


  • BarnesW
    replied
    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. It could arrive on near scene at mach 3 deploy cruise missiles and fly home.
    Because the B-52 carries stealth cruise missiles (AGM-129) with 2,000nm range, so to all intents and purposes its speed and altitude is irrelevant. It also has payload carrying ability that the XB-70 could never hope to have. The B-52 hasn't been intended for use as a free-fall bomber against a peer adversary for a long time. Not really guesses, more like 'likely simulated outcomes'. And at the end of the day, even a Mach 6 bomber would be easier to intercept than a Mach 25 ballistic target.

    As for Mach 3 cruise missiles, yet to materialise in the US. Interestingly though the XB-70 was intended to have a defence against SAMs:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pye_Wacket
    Last edited by BarnesW; 23rd October 2015, 14:20.

    Leave a comment:


  • Levsha
    replied
    Originally posted by BarnesW View Post
    They state the R-37M can intercept targets at Mach 6/25,000m/8g and the R-77-1 at 25,000m/12g.
    These are new missiles, in fact, I don't think they are in service yet. SR-71 was finally retired 16 years ago.

    Mach 3.2 drones are shot down routinely during testing.
    Could you tell us more about this?

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr Strangelove
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BarnesW
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Levsha
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sintra
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • TooCool_12f
    replied
    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 .

    Leave a comment:


  • swerve
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • sandiego89
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • logical1
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • logical1
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • logical1
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Robbiesmurf
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sundog
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BIGVERN1966
    replied
    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.)

    Leave a comment:


  • MSphere
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

 

Working...
X