Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Results 1 to 30 of 75

Thread: Not building the B-70 when we could have was really dumb

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Lincoln Ne
    Posts
    159

    Not building the B-70 when we could have was really dumb

    More and more it is looking really stupid that the B-70 was cancelled. Here are about 3 reasons why.

    First since the B-52 is still a valued aircraft, why wouldnt an aircraft that flys twice as high and 4 times faster be better.

    Second, since the SR-71 was never shot down, why wouldnt the B-70 achieve the same results.

    Third, with all the large supersonic flying experience it would have had, cancelling it probably set aviation back 30 years. There is no reason we should not have supersonic transports flying all over the world right now.

    Cancelling the B-70 was just a stupid political move.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,947
    B-52 is still used because it is a big bomb truck that can launch missiles from 5000-10000 km aways. You don't need a fast aircraft that is several times more expensive to do that.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,209
    what's more, the B-52 is an old horse that can be adapted to any needs.. the Russians had the Myasitchev M-50 even earlier in the pipeline which was disposed of in the early 1960's as they developed missiles to do the job (a lot cheaper to maintain).. same thing: the mission for which it was made disappeared

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,590
    First since the B-52 is still a valued aircraft, why wouldnt an aircraft that flys twice as high and 4 times faster be better.
    Because flying and maintaining a mach3 aircraft, one that had no obvious mission and weighted 50% more than a B-52, would have bankrupted the USAF.

    Second, since the SR-71 was never shot down, why wouldnt the B-70 achieve the same results.
    The SR-71 was retired in 1998, the Dragon Lady still flies, there´s a lesson in there.

    Third, with all the large supersonic flying experience it would have had, cancelling it probably set aviation back 30 years. There is no reason we should not have supersonic transports flying all over the world right now.
    It would have been such an invaluable experience for the civilian aviation having a great supersonic airframe flying around.
    Hmmmmmmmmmm
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2C775B2A00000578-3239952-image-a-38_1442580498040.jpg 
Views:	104 
Size:	68.0 KB 
ID:	256270

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,224
    @Mig 31.

    The B 52 is not a bomb truck. Its a bomb hay wagon. The B 70, if configured to just be a bomb truck, would have been more efficent. Hard not to be.

    I agree with the poster. The B 52 still has doggy low bypass engines ffs.
    Last edited by KGB; 12th October 2017 at 18:22.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,590
    The B 52 is not a bomb truck. Its a bomb hay wagon. The B 70, if configured to just be a bomb truck, would have been more efficent. Hard not to be.

    I agree with the poster. The B 52 still has doggy low bypass engines ffs.
    The B-70 would have less range than the B-52, carrying 1/3 of the bomb load, while consuming more fuel and an RCS that could rival the USS Gerald R. Ford.
    Last edited by Sintra; 12th October 2017 at 19:12.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,224
    @Sintra

    The Concorde was not a failure. It flew til 2003 and 911 regulations and the resulting depression in the industry grounded it.

    The crashes were not its fault most of the time. It had a good safety record.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,209
    Crashes? the Concorde crashed only once... one time too many, of course, but only once

    The main problem of the Concorde was in two facts:

    - the US protectionism that forbid it from flying over continental USA

    - the 1974 crisis when oil prices jumped through the roof, resulting in the impossibility to make any profit with the Concorde (as the ticket price to make profits would have been so high that way too few people would be able to afford it). British Airways and Air France both had their part of the Concorde initial production which they kept flying for prestige reasons, even if they made no direct money on it

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,525
    KGB:
    Concorde was a commercial airliner which couldn't repay any of its design & development or even production costs. Airlines could only afford to operate it when they were given it, free.

    That's a failure.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,209
    No long-range missile - no effective aircraft

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	compare.JPG 
Views:	125 
Size:	118.0 KB 
ID:	256275

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,700
    Quote Originally Posted by mig-31bm View Post
    B-52 is still used because it is a big bomb truck that can launch missiles from 5000-10000 km aways. You don't need a fast aircraft that is several times more expensive to do that.
    5000 to 10,000 km?. what is price of those missiles?fast aircraft not expensive. Why all the time B1 flying in Middleast and NK.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,495
    First since the B-52 is still a valued aircraft, why wouldnt an aircraft that flys twice as high and 4 times faster be better.
    But probably a bazillion times more expensive to operate too.

    Second, since the SR-71 was never shot down, why wouldnt the B-70 achieve the same results.
    The Sr 71 never overflew enemy territory. For a bomber you would have to.

    Nic

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Stockholm / Istanbul
    Posts
    203
    The Sr 71 never overflew enemy territory. For a bomber you would have to.
    Sure it did. Just not USSR/China.

    At least Vietnam and N.Korea were oveflown.
    Last edited by Z1pp0; 12th October 2017 at 23:16.
    Latencia Profecionalis

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    448
    add Cuba!
    Thanks,

    Buddha

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,919
    While the B-70A will always be the most beautiful supersonic jet to me, I dare wonder if they had went conservative.

    I wouldn't have minded to see B-58 replaced with a layout like the B-70A. Four J79 rather than six engines. Podded engine bays separated into two pairs like on B-1A but more flattened and scoop-shaped engine intakes to come to a point like on B-70A, using the intakes to shield the landing gear and internal space between the engines. I always liked the Loch Ness monster neckline of the B-70A with its Viggen-like canards. And if it could have a horizontal beaver tail and twin verticals over the engine bays like on the Tomcat. B-70A really was a glorified theater bomber in range. And with its structural limitations, it would have been prone to accidents retiring air-frames way too early for the investment.
    Go Huskers!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,895
    It was a North American product, the company that defined the 50's and 60's with their products (mainly Saber and Vigilante). Add to that that Rocketdyne was an entity of NAA and you'd see that never in history a company ever has defined so much the future of aerospace (BAe if seen as a single entity could be but this could be revisionism by aglomerating the diversity of entities it was at the time)... Today, SpaceX and LM comes into mind but shsssssst. Don't wake up the trolls
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 20th October 2017 at 01:02.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    524
    @KGB
    The noise pollution thing wasn't a scam....I live on one of the flight paths to Heathrow Airport (almost 30 km away) one of the busiest airports in the world....when Concorde used to fly over the whole house would shake...if you were on the phone you had wait until it had gone to carry on talking...it really was awful! Hundreds of planes fly every day but you can't hear a thing....modern jets are silent by comparison ;-)

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,919
    XB-70 didn't even have a bay for bombs. That was a technical hurdle yet to tackle.

    It made more sense in the electronics day & age to resurrect YF-12A as a standoff high-speed, high-altitude smartbomb-release platform. The B-70 was affordable if you operated like ten and cancelled B-52, FB-111A, and B-58 - and never initiated B-1A development - to offset operational costs.
    Go Huskers!

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,224
    @Tony

    Of course the boom was real. But they could have mitigated the noise pollution. Instead they banned it

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    524
    @KGB

    Just to be clear the noise wasn't from the supersonic boom....it was noisy when flying relatively low and slowly over the suburbs on the way to the airport to land....the whole house literally shook when it flew over....the airport noise levels (I think around 120 dB from memory) already louder than other airliners were relaxed by the government for political reasons so the BA and Air France Concorde fleets could continue to operate.

    The Rolls Royce Olympus engines were derived from the engines used in the Vulcan nuclear bomber of the 1950s. It was too expensive to build the brand new proposed engine (RB.169) so an existing engine based on the Mk.320 used in the cancelled TSR-2 nuclear strike aircraft was used instead.

    Attempts were made to reduce the noise, including by SNECMA, but the attempts at noise mitigation such as spades projecting in the exhaust all failed. There was a proposal for a new engine with reduced air flow to mitigate noise but it was just too expensive to develop and build while there was a working engine which had superb Mach 2 performance and could supercruise (the real deal and not the watered down LM version! )

    Someone has already nailed why the B-70 was cancelled....it was just too expensive and would have eaten up the USAF budget....there were other, cheaper methods of delivering nuclear warheads into the USSR using missiles....there no longer was a mission to fly bombers into one of the most heavily defended places on Earth....the shoot down of Gary Powers U-2 showed the writing was on the wall.....some people might say Mathias Rust landing his plane unchallenged in Red Square put some question on to whether the celebrated Soviet air defence was all that!
    Last edited by Tony; 13th October 2017 at 02:30.
    Stand up for what you believe in even if you are standing alone...Sophie Scholl (9 May 1921 - 22 February 1943)

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    980
    To be fair, they had the B-58 and F-111, similar role.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,526
    some people might say Mathias Rust landing his plane unchallenged in Red Square put some question on to whether the celebrated Soviet air defence was all that!
    He was buzzed by MiG-23s multiple times.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,209
    XB-70 didn't even have a bay for bombs. That was a technical hurdle yet to tackle.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	pic_65.jpg 
Views:	101 
Size:	212.8 KB 
ID:	256292

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,720
    another

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	34e92cab012b71314b94eaf4dad8b957.jpg 
Views:	75 
Size:	488.0 KB 
ID:	256294
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,919
    C'mon, SpudmanWP, you know weapons separation doesn't magically happen from an empty space.

    They hadn't worked on the apparatus nor the doors. An empty space didn't cost any development money and they had a high burn rate for money in the program.
    Go Huskers!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES