B-58

wrote:
Hi Darrel

Darrell S wrote:
If you want to see and read more about the Hustler, click on
the link to my B-58 web site, below.
Don't forget to sign the guest book. The More B-58 Pictures Annex link
takes you to 3 more pages of pictures and text.
Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler History: (see below)
http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/

Here's another interesting link,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-58_Hustler

As I understand it, the B58 was a high
speed - high altitude bomber that entered
service about Mar/15/1960, with nil stealth
capability. Gary Power's U2 was shot down
May/1/1960, and had some stealth paint,
that the Ruskies managed to circumvent.
So 2 months after entering service, the
B58 became a *low altitude penetration*
bomber, with enough range for a one
way trip into the USSR, effectively
rendering it a kamikaze bomber.
I think the crews knew that and it's their
courage that helped keep us safe during
the transition to ICBM's.

IMO it was as sexy as anything that flew
but it was not a good warplane because
it was difficult to adapt, while the B52
could carry stand-off weapons and make
it home, though in hindsight, it filled a
vital deterrence gap in the early 1960's,
that was equivalent to the B52 swarm,
depending on gravity bombs.
Regards
Ken\


Wasn't it the fastest postwar bomber until the XB-70 came along???

Rob

Rob Arndt wrote:
wrote:
Hi Darrel

Darrell S wrote:
If you want to see and read more about the Hustler, click on
the link to my B-58 web site, below.
Don't forget to sign the guest book. The More B-58 Pictures Annex link
takes you to 3 more pages of pictures and text.
Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler History: (see below)
http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/

Here's another interesting link,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-58_Hustler

As I understand it, the B58 was a high
speed - high altitude bomber that entered
service about Mar/15/1960, with nil stealth
capability. Gary Power's U2 was shot down
May/1/1960, and had some stealth paint,
that the Ruskies managed to circumvent.
So 2 months after entering service, the
B58 became a *low altitude penetration*
bomber, with enough range for a one
way trip into the USSR, effectively
rendering it a kamikaze bomber.
I think the crews knew that and it's their
courage that helped keep us safe during
the transition to ICBM's.

IMO it was as sexy as anything that flew
but it was not a good warplane because
it was difficult to adapt, while the B52
could carry stand-off weapons and make
it home, though in hindsight, it filled a
vital deterrence gap in the early 1960's,
that was equivalent to the B52 swarm,
depending on gravity bombs.
Regards
Ken\

Wasn't it the fastest postwar bomber until the XB-70 came along???
Rob

Well the XB-70 was a class above the B58,
but the Ruskies may have had something
better. The A-12 (Blackbird) was considered
for a strike bomber, with a pair of tactical
nukes...that would have been a highly effective
system, but the triad deterrence (sub, b52+
stand-off, ICBM) had matured by 1965 that
rendered the A-12 redundant in the McNamara
MAD doctrine, which in hindsight looks good.
Regards
Ken

Wasn't it the fastest postwar bomber until the XB-70 came along???

Well the XB-70 was a class above the B58

A B-58 was one of the chase planes for the XB-70.

john smith wrote:
Wasn't it the fastest postwar bomber until the XB-70 came along???

Well the XB-70 was a class above the B58

A B-58 was one of the chase planes for the XB-70.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XB-70

With the petal to the metal, the B58 is a
dimishing artifact in the rear view mirror of
an XB70.
I don't know, but think an XB-70 could blow
the SR-71 away for many technical reasons,
like ballistic coefficient and thermal cooling.
Ken

Well the XB-70 was a class above the B58,
but the Ruskies may have had something
better.

Ken

What a/c are you referring to? The Tu-128 Fiddler interceptor or the
Tu-22 Blinder bomber (both based on the failed Tu-98 Backfin)?

Tysbin had its own design based on the NM-1- the RSR:

http://vif2ne.ru/nvi/stuff/Bask/mode...ybin_rsr_2.jpg

Rob

Rob Arndt wrote:
Well the XB-70 was a class above the B58,
but the Ruskies may have had something
better.

Ken

What a/c are you referring to? The Tu-128 Fiddler interceptor or the
Tu-22 Blinder bomber (both based on the failed Tu-98 Backfin)?

Tysbin had its own design based on the NM-1- the RSR:

http://vif2ne.ru/nvi/stuff/Bask/mode...ybin_rsr_2.jpg

Rob

Thanks...
IIRC the Ruskies built something similiar to
the XB70 though smaller, I'm sorry I couldn't
find an online ref. and it was obviously not
deployed, it may be rumor. I'll reiterate,
"may have had something better".
Regards
Ken

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Rob Arndt wrote:
Well the XB-70 was a class above the B58,
but the Ruskies may have had something
better.

Ken

What a/c are you referring to? The Tu-128 Fiddler interceptor or the
Tu-22 Blinder bomber (both based on the failed Tu-98 Backfin)?

Tysbin had its own design based on the NM-1- the RSR:

http://vif2ne.ru/nvi/stuff/Bask/mode...ybin_rsr_2.jpg

Rob

Thanks...
IIRC the Ruskies built something similiar to
the XB70 though smaller, I'm sorry I couldn't
find an online ref. and it was obviously not
deployed, it may be rumor. I'll reiterate,
"may have had something better".
Regards
Ken


Ken,

That was the Su-100, a.k.a. "T-4":
http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums/potty/19.htm

In response, the US would have used the XF-108 Rapier as a B-70 escort:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...108_mockup.jpg

However, ALL these aircraft projects were cancelled...

Rob

Rob Arndt wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Rob Arndt wrote:
Well the XB-70 was a class above the B58,
but the Ruskies may have had something
better.

Ken

What a/c are you referring to? The Tu-128 Fiddler interceptor or the
Tu-22 Blinder bomber (both based on the failed Tu-98 Backfin)?

Tysbin had its own design based on the NM-1- the RSR:

http://vif2ne.ru/nvi/stuff/Bask/mode...ybin_rsr_2.jpg

Rob

Thanks...
IIRC the Ruskies built something similiar to
the XB70 though smaller, I'm sorry I couldn't
find an online ref. and it was obviously not
deployed, it may be rumor. I'll reiterate,
"may have had something better".
Regards
Ken


Ken,

That was the Su-100, a.k.a. "T-4":
http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums/potty/19.htm

Hmmm, T-4 bears some superficial resemblance, though it apparenly lacks
the VG wing-tips and double fin, is smaller and never demonstrated
quite as high a speed. I've never heard "compression left" directly
associated with the T-4, so if anybody has, I'd love to hear it. And
don't ge me started about that nose-droop thing. The B-70 used some
kind of motorized wing-screen which always seemed more preferable to
the big pivoting nose on T-4 which seemed more aesthetically and
functionally appealing. Does anybody know what T-4's operating
altitude was? Or its mission? I heard that T-4 was designed to strike
at enemy warships in waters along the Russian frontier, as opposed to
the B-70's strategic strike mission. From the stories floating around
the net, it appears that the T-4 was less a Soviet weapon to be used
against the West than one to be used by Sukhoi against Tupolev, hinting
that Russian aerospace was probably inundated with all sorts of
warplanes and making it inevitable that one looking somewhat like one
of our own would emerge.

In response, the US would have used the XF-108 Rapier as a B-70 escort:

....which is confirmed by everybody else, including WPAFB website, but
I've always been skeptical of that given what I've read in Anderson's
"To Fly and Fight". While describing his work on the parasite fighter
program, he remarks on SAC's traditional aversion to escorts - noting
that bomber pros claim that they can go it alone and then pay the price
when that proves optimistic. (Anderson gave the Korean experience for
B-29's as an example.) Seems to me that the USAF requested the B-70 to
have high-speed/-alt performance in order to obviate the need for an
escort. So why the F-108?

FatKat wrote:
Rob Arndt wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Rob Arndt wrote:
Well the XB-70 was a class above the B58,
but the Ruskies may have had something
better.

Ken

What a/c are you referring to? The Tu-128 Fiddler interceptor or the
Tu-22 Blinder bomber (both based on the failed Tu-98 Backfin)?

Tysbin had its own design based on the NM-1- the RSR:

http://vif2ne.ru/nvi/stuff/Bask/mode...ybin_rsr_2.jpg

Rob

Thanks...
IIRC the Ruskies built something similiar to
the XB70 though smaller, I'm sorry I couldn't
find an online ref. and it was obviously not
deployed, it may be rumor. I'll reiterate,
"may have had something better".
Regards
Ken

That was the Su-100, a.k.a. "T-4":
http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums/potty/19.htm

Thanks for ref Rob. Claims the T-4 had
4 x 35,000# engines = 140,000#

-B-58 had 4x15000# = 60,000
-B-70 6x28000# = 168,000

I don't understand the rationale for the T-4,
in the time frame of the early 70's, if that's
true, except perhaps as an X-plane. If so
the T-4 would be quite more advanced than
the B-70 or SR71, with a burst speed well
over 2000mph, given the airframe and engines
and considering the Ruskies new alot about
Mach 3 ducting as the Mig 25 demo'd, it's
probably secret.

I also had in mind the "Bounder"
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/m-50.htm
contemporary with the B-58,
M-50,52 total thrust = 112,000#, and more than
likely as fast or faster than the B-58.

Hmmm, T-4 bears some superficial resemblance, though it apparenly lacks
the VG wing-tips and double fin, is smaller and never demonstrated
quite as high a speed. I've never heard "compression left" directly
associated with the T-4, so if anybody has, I'd love to hear it.

Looks like "compression lift" at the front part
of the engine pod. The way the pod expands
it would produce pressure and compression.

And don't ge me started about that nose-droop thing.

I think that's neat, converts the wind-screen
into an air speed brake.

The B-70 used some
kind of motorized wing-screen which always seemed more preferable to
the big pivoting nose on T-4 which seemed more aesthetically and
functionally appealing. Does anybody know what T-4's operating
altitude was? Or its mission? I heard that T-4 was designed to strike
at enemy warships in waters along the Russian frontier, as opposed to
the B-70's strategic strike mission. From the stories floating around
the net, it appears that the T-4 was less a Soviet weapon to be used
against the West than one to be used by Sukhoi against Tupolev, hinting
that Russian aerospace was probably inundated with all sorts of
warplanes and making it inevitable that one looking somewhat like one
of our own would emerge.

One could argue the F-15 is a copy of the Mig-25.

In response, the US would have used the XF-108 Rapier as a B-70 escort:

...which is confirmed by everybody else, including WPAFB website, but
I've always been skeptical of that given what I've read in Anderson's
"To Fly and Fight". While describing his work on the parasite fighter
program, he remarks on SAC's traditional aversion to escorts - noting
that bomber pros claim that they can go it alone and then pay the price
when that proves optimistic. (Anderson gave the Korean experience for
B-29's as an example.) Seems to me that the USAF requested the B-70 to
have high-speed/-alt performance in order to obviate the need for an
escort. So why the F-108?

I see the F-108 as a parallel to the CF-105 Arrow,
which in a nutshell, were obsoleted by Sputnik,
and SAM's. Obvoiusly the manufacturer would
float any reason to keep the project, that's their
job.
Ken

Rob Arndt wrote:
snip


Wasn't it the fastest postwar bomber until the XB-70 came along???

Rob


You could have omitted "postwar" since it beat anything before for
speed.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired