Aviation set back 20 years when we didnt build the B-70

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

8 years 7 months

Posts: 491

Make that GUESSES in missile technology. I submit that if the slow lumbering B-52 is still considered a viable war plane, why wouldnt one that could fly more that half again higher, and 4 times as fast. It could arrive on near scene at mach 3 deploy cruise missiles and fly home.

Because the B-52 carries stealth cruise missiles (AGM-129) with 2,000nm range, so to all intents and purposes its speed and altitude is irrelevant. It also has payload carrying ability that the XB-70 could never hope to have. The B-52 hasn't been intended for use as a free-fall bomber against a peer adversary for a long time. Not really guesses, more like 'likely simulated outcomes'. And at the end of the day, even a Mach 6 bomber would be easier to intercept than a Mach 25 ballistic target.

As for Mach 3 cruise missiles, yet to materialise in the US. Interestingly though the XB-70 was intended to have a defence against SAMs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pye_Wacket

Member for

8 years 7 months

Posts: 491

These are new missiles, in fact, I don't think they are in service yet. SR-71 was finally retired 16 years ago.

Could you tell us more about this?


I believe they're both in service now on the MiG-31BM and MiG-31M. But the R-33S (ARH version of R-33) is also stated to have the same capability as R-37M as regards speed/altitude/g but not range.

This is the drone.

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3036/3907132751_45eac8d7cb_z.jpg?zz=1

Member for

8 years 7 months

Posts: 491

Sounds like you are referring to Flight#39 with the second airframe, conducted on May 19, 1966. Believe this was the longest sustained fast flight. For clarification I believe the XB-70's almost exclusively flew out of Edwards and Palmdale (one trip to Carsewell AFB I believe and the one way delivery flight to the USAF museum) so I doubt she got anywhere near the Atlantic, much less "crossed" it.

Makes you appreciate the A-12/SR-71 which could sustain M3+ for longer periods.


To execute a 91 minute flight covering 2,400 miles, it's speed couldn't have been much off M3.0 at anytime between the take-off and landing phase. Over a 3,500 mile jorney a concorde averaged 1,000mph (M1.5), with a Mach 2.02 average cruise, the XB-70 averaged 1,600mph (M2.4) over 2,400 miles.

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 2,014

Well I'm quoting Combat Aircraft directly. Obviously I haven't conducted personal tests. They state the R-37M can intercept targets at Mach 6/25,000m/8g and the R-77-1 at 25,000m/12g. Mach 3.2 drones are shot down routinely during testing.

i know you get it from a book , but that doesn't mean it isn't BS
mach 6 is even faster than many ballistic missiles ( EX : Scud ), then the target also pull 8G , and fly at 25 km ( > 80K ft ) , there is nothing at the moment can even achieved that feat
A missile doesn't have to worry about killing the crew. Look up how many g an AAM or SAM pulls.

it true that missiles doesnt have to worry about crew , at low altitude missiles fly much higher speed than aircraft , that will give missiles enough lift to counter the effect of small fin , however , at high altitude , the air is very thin so your missiles would be lucky to be even able to turn ( especially since SAM , AAM dont fly much faster than XB-70 while have much less wing area , if the XB-70 can only sustain 2-3 G , i really doubt that missiles can change direction )

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 2,014

I believe they're both in service now on the MiG-31BM and MiG-31M. But the R-33S (ARH version of R-33) is also stated to have the same capability as R-37M as regards speed/altitude/g but not range.

This is the drone.

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3036/3907132751_45eac8d7cb_z.jpg?zz=1

i think USA similar counterpart is the AQM-37 , dont know what the European or Chinese use though
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/AQM-37A_target_on_an_A-6E_Intruder.jpg/1024px-AQM-37A_target_on_an_A-6E_Intruder.jpg