XB-70 vs B-2

"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?

"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?

Well, yes and no. The XB-70 was indeed a marvel, and would probably be very
useful in *today's* military, however lets put the situation in context.

At the time (1955), all of our weapons systems were being designed to
counter the soviet threat. It was originally thought that 'high and fast'
would be a great combination for a bomber to evade soviet defenses, i.e. the
SR-71. However, the shoot-down of the U2 over soviet terratory demonstrated
that their SAM technologies were capable of hitting high altitude targets.
And while no SR-71 was ever taken down, even the Blackbird had a couple of
*very* close calls with soviet SAMs.

Now although the XB-70 flew high and fast, it was neither as high, nor as
fast as the SR-71 (M3.0 @ 72k vs. M3.2+ @ 85k+). Take into account it's
massive radar signature and the fact that at mach 3 the aircraft was not
terribly manuverable, flying an essentially straight-line trajectory; and it
became a simple matter of mathmatics to see that it would probably not be
all that hard for the soviets to hit. (Hence it's cancellation). Stealth
technology was seen (and rightly so) as the single greatest option for
penetrating soviet air defenses.

Of course, today there is no soviet threat, and indeed no threat with the
SAM capabilities once posessed by the soviets, so the XB-70 would probably
be well suited to many of today's missions; unfortunately in 1955 it was
impossible to predict. However the B-2 is a highly useful and important
asset, and will remain so for the forseeable future. It will take much more
than a single advance in sensor technology to make it obsolete; trust me,
many have been working towards that goal for almost two decades now, and we
haven't been sitting on our hands here either. The B-2 was a good
investment, and will be around for a while.

Thomas J. Paladino
New York City

From: Hobo
Date: 12/17/2003 11:37 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


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 XB-70 had no low altiotude mission capability.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

As others have pointed out, the B-70 would have been vulnerable to SAMs,
especially as those missiles dedicated to strategic defense would have
been nuclear armed. And the B-70 would have been awfully expensive to
operate for conventional ops. But wouldn't have it been so Cool!

From: (B2431)


The XB-70 had no low altiotude mission capability.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired


Egad, tarver's spelling has rubbed off on me.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: (B2431)


The XB-70 had no low altiotude mission capability.

Egad, tarver's spelling has rubbed off on me.

Being able to spell is the last thing you had, Dan, so sorry.

"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 $$...

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 $$...








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.

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

The MiG-25 was designed specifically to counter the B-70.

Correct. Wasn't the B-70 killer missile the Mig-25 was designed to
carry called the "Anab"? 40 feet long IIRC. Huge mutha.

Besides that, the B-70 program was dimmed further by breaking
developments in ICBM range/payload and also inertial guidance
developments out of the Charles Stark Draper Labs at MIT, and the
(sorta) commercial development of same by Northrup in the greater
Boston area (Norwood?).

"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.

Dunno... An airplane as big as the B-70, with LOTS of space for black boxes and
wiring, might have lent itself fairly well to modern electronics with their
smaller boxes. Look at all the warts and gizmos the B-52 has grown, externally
and internally, in the past 40+ years...

If the Buff can be adapted to JDAM, JSOW, and ALCM, why not the B-70? Filling
the big, open bomb bay with racks or launchers and/or fuel tanks like the B-52
or B-1 might not be that hard...

OTOH, the local flow and weapon separation problems at Mach 3 would be
"interesting" for smaller weapons...