XB-70 vs B-2

The XB-70 had one large weapons bay and a payload rating of 50,000 pounds.
The B-1B, at about 2/3 the max gross weight of the XB-70, carried a larger
payload with its three 20,000 pound weapons bays plus the ability to carry
another 30,000 pounds externally. Hardly feeble .... Designing for Mach 3
using 1950's technology resulted in a much smaller payload as a fraction of
the gross weight than any newer design. Concourde suffered the same payload
inefficiency.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:dQoEb.145855$_M.717065@attbi_s54...
"Hobo" wrote...

Would it have made more sense to have built the XB-70 instead of the
B-2? With its speed and high altitude ability the XB-70 would have had
much of the survivability of the B-2, perhaps at a lower cost. The XB-70
would also have been less vulnerable to technological change. A single
big advance in sensor technology could make the B-2 a sitting duck, but
the XB-70 will always have its Mach 3 speed to rely on. In terms of
cost/performance, wouldn't the XB-70 have been able to do the same job
at a lower price?

The MiG-25 was designed specifically to counter the B-70. It also would
have
been somewhat vulnerable to the SA-5. I suspect technological advances on
both
sides would have kept it somewhat vulnerable at any given time.

Also, the payload for which the B-70 was designed no longer exists -- it
was
obsolete almost before the XB-70 flew. Whether the B-70 would have been
suitable for the smaller nukes, ALCMs, and other modern weapons would make
for
an interesting discussion. At first glance, the B-1 was a feeble attempt
to
replicate the B-70 concept, using smaller payloads and MANY fewer $$...