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 $$...

In article , Smartace11 wrote:

I imagine a mod to carry anything conventional besides dumb bombs would have
been cost prohibitive with the state of art electronics a 1950s airplane had.

I think you meant "1960s". By the time it was in service, it would have probably
been nearly the 70s.

Mike Beede

The B70 was doomed once its IR signature was analyzed. Even the B58 at
M2.0 had an IR signature the 102's poor old LN2 cooled seeker head
could detect about 100 miles away. And we found the IR Falcons could
track the B58, too. At least the IR WESM (Weapons System Evaluator
Missile) brought back tapes showing the missile seeker head was locked
on and tracking - during a frontal attack. Now, A B70 at M3.0 and
+75000 would be like a giant IR beacon with a radar signature like the
Vertical Assembly Building, all screaming 'Shoot Me'.
Walt BJ

In article ,
(WaltBJ) wrote:

The B70 was doomed once its IR signature was analyzed. Even the B58 at
M2.0 had an IR signature the 102's poor old LN2 cooled seeker head
could detect about 100 miles away. And we found the IR Falcons could
track the B58, too. At least the IR WESM (Weapons System Evaluator
Missile) brought back tapes showing the missile seeker head was locked
on and tracking - during a frontal attack. Now, A B70 at M3.0 and
+75000 would be like a giant IR beacon with a radar signature like the
Vertical Assembly Building, all screaming 'Shoot Me'.

The only problem with high-speed IR missiles over long ranges is that
the window in the front of the seeker head gets hot enough to blind the
warhead. The same factors that make the B70 an IR beacon make the
missile itself one, too, unless you keep the speed down (which cuts back
on the effectiveness of the missile, even in head-on encounters).

Now, a ground-based IR acquisition system could be very nice for such a
high, fast plane, with a radar-based terminal guidance system for the
missile itself, avoiding the IR issues.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
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.

Before the B-70's first flight, it was clear that SAM technology, both
Russian and Western, was more than up to the task of knocking it down.

Which is why no production Valkyries were built.

MiG-25 was not designed to counter B-70, but to intercept A-12 and SR-71.
At least Rostislav Belyakov, MiG-25 the chief engineer of MiG stated...
--

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA
John R Weiss wrote in message ...
"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 $$...

Ragnar wrote:

"Hobo" wrote in message
...

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 SA-12 goes up to about 100,000 feet and does at least Mach 6. Think the
XB-70 could handle that?

You could make a case for a Sam being able to knock out any airplane. So why
build any at all?

Assuming B70's were built and upgraded umpteen times by now,
what do you think the results would be with a re-engine of the six pack with a
modern supercruise engine such as a F119?

Bob



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In article ,
BOB URZ wrote:

Assuming B70's were built and upgraded umpteen times by now,
what do you think the results would be with a re-engine of the six pack with a
modern supercruise engine such as a F119?

Since the engines used in the F-23 have about 85% of the thrust in
cruise as the B-70 engines in full afterburner, it sorta makes you
wonder about the range...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"BOB URZ" wrote in message
...


Ragnar wrote:

"Hobo" wrote in message
...

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 SA-12 goes up to about 100,000 feet and does at least Mach 6. Think
the
XB-70 could handle that?

You could make a case for a Sam being able to knock out any airplane. So
why
build any at all?

Poor logic on your part. An SA-2 or 3 would have no chance of engaging an
XB-70, but an SA-10 or 12 would. The point is that the XB-70 was designed
to encounter those early missiles. Unfortunately, later missiles like the
SA-5 were already in development at the time and its the future threat, not
the current threat, that killed the XB-70.

Assuming B70's were built and upgraded umpteen times by now,
what do you think the results would be with a re-engine of the six pack
with a
modern supercruise engine such as a F119?

It would look really cool, but it wouldn't go any faster.

You could make a case for a Sam being able to knock out any airplane. So why
build any at all?

Assuming B70's were built and upgraded umpteen times by now,
what do you think the results would be with a re-engine of the six pack with a
modern supercruise engine such as a F119?

Bob

Actually I'd be surprised if the F119 powered one wasn't *slower*.
The J93 was designed for Mach 3 and high altitudes. The F119 is not.