Why an Egret & an XB-70 are simular (1/1)

"Ron Monroe" wrote in message ...
The crash occured long after the B-70 was canceled.They started cutting back the program before the first one ever flew.This was during the Macnamara years, which also contributed. There was an attempt to build a third aircraft, and, I believe they had already cut metal, before that, too was canceled.



Now, there's a thought, a B-70 with a tail hook for the USN, exponential commonality.







They were also trying to convert the mission from a supersonic bomber to a supersonic reconaissance/strike aircraft. It would go in after any strike was made, recon, and, if any target was left, take it out. The new designation was to be RS-70. This too was killed.
Ron




Maybe it's different in the rest of the world, but in Australia, calling anything 'RS' it the kiss of death™








"tony.anquetil" wrote in message ...
XB70 never entered in production due to :
a.. the development of accurate intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), or their maritime counterparts submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBM),
b.. the development of efficient Soviet surface-to-air missiles (SAM) and the MiG25 FOXBAT interceptor, able to hit bombers flying at high altitude and high speed (see the number of U2 spyplanes shot down),
c.. high development costs, during the Vietnam war-era,
d.. a crash,
e.. lobbying,
f.. other reasons I don't remember.
Sorry for my syntax, grammar and poor vocabulary. I'm French but I try to improve my English/American.
I'm ready to discuss about aeronautical subjects with anybody :








I'm a pilot officer stored in a awful headquarter office. Please, help me!



There's a breakout after lights-out, pass it on.








--

Cheers

Dave Kearton

Norm DePlume wrote:

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:36:02 GMT, "HEMI-Powered" wrote:


Greg Farr added these comments in the current discussion du jour
...


Attachment decoded: Great Egret landing 2.jpg
`
Attachment decoded: XB-70.jpg

I see your point, Greg, but the XB-70 is just a tad bigger! grin
I remember looking at the one then outside of the Wright-Patterson
AFB USAF Museum, circa 1986 or so. What a huge but beautiful bird!
Not being a military aircraft guru at all, I never learned why the
XB-70 was never developed or even tested beyond (I think) only 2
prototypes, but then, a lot of aircraft and other weapons never get
developed or have a very short life.


Hello,
By the time she was ready to fly, her speed and altitude capabilities
were insufficient to protect her from the, by then, improved Soviet
surface-to-air missile capabilities. Additionally, the costs of
production and operation were deemed excessive. Yes, only two were
built, but the second crashed during testing, taking with her co-pilot
Carl Cross and chase pilot Joe Walker.


The crash was not the result of testing but a mishap during a aerial
photo op when one of smaller planes of the formation collided with the
XB-70.

JT

"HEMI-Powered" wrote in news:Xns99CD6600E21BDReplyScoreID@
140.99.99.130:

tony.anquetil added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

XB70 never entered in production due to :
a.. the development of accurate intercontinental ballistic
missiles (ICBM), or their maritime counterparts submarine
launched ballistic missiles (SLBM), b.. the development of
efficient Soviet surface-to-air missiles (SAM) and the MiG25
FOXBAT interceptor, able to hit bombers flying at high
altitude and high speed (see the number of U2 spyplanes shot
down), c.. high development costs, during the Vietnam
war-era, d.. a crash,
e.. lobbying,
f.. other reasons I don't remember.
Sorry for my syntax, grammar and poor vocabulary. I'm French
but I try to improve my English/American. I'm ready to discuss
about aeronautical subjects with anybody : I'm a pilot
officer stored in a awful headquarter office. Please, help me!

A second excellent info post! Thank you! And, I'm sorry, but I
forgot to thank the other person who gave me a somewhat shorter
version of the story. After reading these two replies, NOW I
remember that the other prototype crashed, but even though I was
old enough to be aware of all of this, I guess I was busy being a
teen ager and didn't pay attention.

And, now that I see it, my fading memory does recall the Francis
Gary Powers U-2 incident in May, 1960 or thereabouts where the
CIA and the USAF discovered to their sorrow that the Soviets were
far more advanced with SAMs than they'd thought. Which, of
course, prompted the development of the SR-71 Blackbird but that
was strictly a spy plane and never modified for military use.

Actually, there was some work on creating an interceptor variant of the A-
12 / SR-71 - the YF-12A

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f12.html
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/n...-047-DFRC.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12

Later on, I recall a number of planes entering service either
before or after the XB-70 such as the B-58 Hustler, the first
supersonic bomber. But, I guess the development first of ICBMs
and not long after Polaris submarines made bombers nearly
obsolete. Except for the venerable Buff, the B-52. I heard
recently that the Air Force expects to keep flying the 52 until
something like 2030!

Nowadays, ostensibly, the Cold War threat is over. It really
isn't, but technocracy such as the B-2 stealth bomber seem to be
the way to go. But, GAWD, that XB-70 is an awesomely beautiful
HUGE bird!

As for your language and syntax, you're better than most
Americans. And, my respect and congrats for your service to your
country.

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:53:39 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
wrote:


The crash was not the result of testing but a mishap during a aerial
photo op when one of smaller planes of the formation collided with the
XB-70.

JT
Quite true, although, to my mind, all official flights of
pre-production aircraft are, albeit loosely, considered tests.

"Bob Harrington" schreef in bericht
...
"HEMI-Powered" wrote in news:Xns99CD6600E21BDReplyScoreID@

SNIP


Actually, there was some work on creating an interceptor variant of the A-
12 / SR-71 - the YF-12A

SNIP

The YF-12A never got beyond development work.
It's missile system was later used by the Grumman Tomcat, though.

Regards,
Herman

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:13:58 -0700, redc1c4
wrote:

Greg Farr wrote:

[Image]

[Image]

[Image]

well, we know which one is still in service.....

redc1c4,
(it carries a nasty payload too. %-)

Yeah, usually found around lakes and ponds, some real stinky
****...............

Greg
http://gregsplace.50megs.com
http://www.picturetrail.com/fugitive1