By: logical1
- 22nd October 2015 at 20:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I was pointing out that the third prototype flew at Mach 3+ for sustained periods successfully, so they did overcome the technology hurdle but it was rejected as a reliable delivery method, due to changes in air defence and ballistic missile technology.
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.
New
Posts: 491
By: BarnesW
- 22nd October 2015 at 20:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I too disagree with the 20 year set-back of this thread. An operational B-70 would have been a nightmare to sustain, and would have likely had a similair fate to the near peer B-58- limited, expensive and short lived- and the B-70 was magnitudes more complex than the Hustler.
IIRC one crossed the Atlantic and sustained Mach 3.05 average for 32 minutes and topped out at Mach 3.1 completing a 2,400 mile journey in 91 minutes including take-off and landing, which average out at Mach 2.4 even including subsonic time during landing and take-off and acceleration/deceleration.
By: FalconDude
- 22nd October 2015 at 23:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm just gonna go out and state the obvious here.
If you're crossing the Russian borders with bombers that means only one thing.
Having said that, he B-52 has other qualities which any Mach 3 bomber would not have. Unless you maintain flying at M3 20 meters above the ground!
And although I admire the tenacity of some people to reject reality and substitute their own, no, an M 3 bomber flying high would not be impervious to air defences. Actually it is pretty damn certain it would die a fiery death.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 22nd October 2015 at 23:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i can accept that Mig-31 can intercept SR-71 but to say it can intercept something fly at mach 6, 25000 m and turning 12 G sound like BS propaganda to be honest
You're not reading it correctly. It says it can intercept something flying at up to M6.0.. or something else flying at up to 25,000 m (82,000 ft).. or something else turning up to 12g.. No one says it can intercept something doing all these things at once.. Not that there is such thing, anyway...
By: MadRat
- 23rd October 2015 at 00:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I won't pretend the B-70 was affordable, but think for a second what an updated B-70B would have been by 1985. Internal rotary launcher integrated for SRAM, ALCM, and freefall Paveways. Large enough to carry some pretty impressive loads. GBU-15. JDAM. Retaliation on Al Qaeda in 2003 from 80K feet and out of sight. Tip of the Spear attacking airbases over Iraq. Probably so dangerous that there would be no hesitation to drop bombs on Iran's deep underground facilities.
The downside, the program would have been as costly as the B-2A. Probably similar build count of a couple dozen at most.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 23rd October 2015 at 01:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I won't pretend the B-70 was affordable, but think for a second what an updated B-70B would have been by 1985. Internal rotary launcher integrated for SRAM, ALCM, and freefall Paveways. Large enough to carry some pretty impressive loads. GBU-15. JDAM. Retaliation on Al Qaeda in 2003 from 80K feet and out of sight. Tip of the Spear attacking airbases over Iraq. Probably so dangerous that there would be no hesitation to drop bombs on Iran's deep underground facilities.
1. If you need a SRAM or ALCM carrier, then a B-70 is pointless. B-1A was cancelled, too..
2. Why would you need to bomb Al Qaeda from over 80k feet is beyond me :confused: Did they even have shoulder-fired SAM?
3. The same way I don't think that the hesitation to drop bombs on Iran had anything to do with lack of trust in capabilities of B-2A or BGM-109. It was politically undesirable, plain and simple.
By: BIGVERN1966
- 23rd October 2015 at 03:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well it's easy to compute the interception of an SR-71 "down to the last second" if you already know the time and route of the of the spyplanes's arrival (as they did for many SR-71s flying off the Kola Peninsula). Captain Myagkiy can say what he likes about his aircraft and missiles' capabilities against the SR-71 - but I ask one question: has the captain ever seen, or ever met someone who has seen, a MiG-31 shoot down a Mach 3 target? BTW, plenty of US military pilots may certainly practice a lot of wishful thinking when it comes to the abilities of the F-35 - that doesn't necessarily mean all of this wishful thinking is true, though.
In the case of the SR-71 v Mig 25 / 31, a Mig 25 successfully got an intercept well within the AA-6's no escape zone on an SR-71 over the Baltic during the 1980s and was seen to do so by a NATO long range radar located in West Berlin. B-70 was canned because there were cheaper ways and more efficeve ways of doing its mission (ICBM, SLBM, B-52 at low level, Etc.)
By: Sundog
- 23rd October 2015 at 04:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Check out how many missiles were shot at the SR-71, and note that NOT ONE ever hit it!!!
Add the fact that the SR-71 only had regular wing lift, and the B-70 had compression lift that would make it more manuverable at extreme altitude.
No, it wouldn't. That has to do with the L/D ratio. It made it efficient at cruise. The design load of the XB-70 wasn't much different from the SR-71's and at those speeds, you don't add a lot of load on the airframe. Maneuverability at MACH 3 is something of an oxymoron.
By: Robbiesmurf
- 23rd October 2015 at 06:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Check out how many missiles were shot at the SR-71, and note that NOT ONE ever hit it!!!
Add the fact that the SR-71 only had regular wing lift, and the B-70 had compression lift that would make it more manuverable at extreme altitude.
True but one A12 was actually struck by a piece of a salvo of missiles. They found it embedded in the structure when it landed after the mission..
One of the problems with the A12/SR71 with turns was unstarts. It took them quite a while to fix that.
By: logical1
- 23rd October 2015 at 13:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Both the F-22 and MiG-31 have many times shot down targets flying at various speeds and at various altitiudes - have you never heard of target drones? But I don't recall either aircraft attempting to shoot down targets flying at Mach 3.2 and flying at 80,000 feet, have you? It's all about making credible statements, and providing credible evidence to back them up. Incredible claims need incredible evidence to support them.
Why would the Soviets design and put into production and service an aircraft in 1972 (MiG-25), to counter an aircraft which was completely cancelled in 1962 (B-70)? That doesn't make sense. Maybe the Soviet PVO put the MiG-25 into service because it's a far more effective aircraft at intercepting most aircraft than either the Yak- and Tu-28. An intercepter than can supercruise to its subsonic target at Mach 2.0 is a useful aircraft to have, perhaps?
But the question is-----------were the target drones able to turn at high altitude like a B-70 with their huge wing area, and compression lift? The other point is that during these test, they knew where and when the target drones would be flying.
By: logical1
- 23rd October 2015 at 13:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In the case of the SR-71 v Mig 25 / 31, a Mig 25 successfully got an intercept well within the AA-6's no escape zone on an SR-71 over the Baltic during the 1980s and was seen to do so by a NATO long range radar located in West Berlin. B-70 was canned because there were cheaper ways and more efficeve ways of doing its mission (ICBM, SLBM, B-52 at low level, Etc.)
By: logical1
- 23rd October 2015 at 13:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, it wouldn't. That has to do with the L/D ratio. It made it efficient at cruise. The design load of the XB-70 wasn't much different from the SR-71's and at those speeds, you don't add a lot of load on the airframe. Maneuverability at MACH 3 is something of an oxymoron.
So if maneuverability is is an oxymoron for a B-70 with a huge wing, and compression lift, it not for a missile with small fins?
By: sandiego89
- 23rd October 2015 at 14:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
IIRC one crossed the Atlantic and sustained Mach 3.05 average for 32 minutes and topped out at Mach 3.1 completing a 2,400 mile journey in 91 minutes including take-off and landing, which average out at Mach 2.4 even including subsonic time during landing and take-off and acceleration/deceleration.
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.
By: TooCool_12f
- 23rd October 2015 at 14:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But the question is-----------were the target drones able to turn at high altitude like a B-70 with their huge wing area, and compression lift? The other point is that during these test, they knew where and when the target drones would be flying.
Forget it, @ M3.0 and 70000ft you'd have hard time pulling even 2 G's with the B-70 (and if you tried your aircraft and your speed would drop like a stone anyway...). Any "turn" is a barely bent straight line and any missile with sufficient energy to reach you will be able to intercept you .
By: Sintra
- 23rd October 2015 at 14:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Because its CPFH would rival the equivalent hourly cost of the USS Gerald Ford?
By: Levsha
- 23rd October 2015 at 14:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
At 70,000 feet the air is probaly too thin for a guided missile to turn effectively. At the SR-71's altitude - 85,000 feet - guided missiles probably don't turn very well at all. Let's not forget as well, that both the B-70 and SR-71 carried extremely powerful electronic countermeasures - you can speculate yourself how effective this ECM might have been.
In the case of the SR-71 v Mig 25 / 31, a Mig 25 successfully got an intercept well within the AA-6's no escape zone on an SR-71 over the Baltic during the 1980s and was seen to do so by a NATO long range radar located in West Berlin. B-70 was canned because there were cheaper ways and more efficeve ways of doing its mission (ICBM, SLBM, B-52 at low level, Etc.)
Again, an alleged successful intercept due to the SR-71's flight plan being quite well known. Hell, even the Swedish air force they got a successful intercept of spyplane over the Baltic with their SAAB Viggens.
New
Posts: 491
By: BarnesW
- 23rd October 2015 at 15:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i can accept that Mig-31 can intercept SR-71 but to say it can intercept something fly at mach 6, 25000 m and turning 12 G sound like BS propaganda to be honest
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.
Posts: 162
By: logical1 - 22nd October 2015 at 20:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.Posts: 491
By: BarnesW - 22nd October 2015 at 20:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
IIRC one crossed the Atlantic and sustained Mach 3.05 average for 32 minutes and topped out at Mach 3.1 completing a 2,400 mile journey in 91 minutes including take-off and landing, which average out at Mach 2.4 even including subsonic time during landing and take-off and acceleration/deceleration.
Posts: 1,138
By: FalconDude - 22nd October 2015 at 23:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm just gonna go out and state the obvious here.
If you're crossing the Russian borders with bombers that means only one thing.
Having said that, he B-52 has other qualities which any Mach 3 bomber would not have. Unless you maintain flying at M3 20 meters above the ground!
And although I admire the tenacity of some people to reject reality and substitute their own, no, an M 3 bomber flying high would not be impervious to air defences. Actually it is pretty damn certain it would die a fiery death.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 22nd October 2015 at 23:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You're not reading it correctly. It says it can intercept something flying at up to M6.0.. or something else flying at up to 25,000 m (82,000 ft).. or something else turning up to 12g.. No one says it can intercept something doing all these things at once.. Not that there is such thing, anyway...Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 23rd October 2015 at 00:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I won't pretend the B-70 was affordable, but think for a second what an updated B-70B would have been by 1985. Internal rotary launcher integrated for SRAM, ALCM, and freefall Paveways. Large enough to carry some pretty impressive loads. GBU-15. JDAM. Retaliation on Al Qaeda in 2003 from 80K feet and out of sight. Tip of the Spear attacking airbases over Iraq. Probably so dangerous that there would be no hesitation to drop bombs on Iran's deep underground facilities.
The downside, the program would have been as costly as the B-2A. Probably similar build count of a couple dozen at most.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 23rd October 2015 at 01:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
1. If you need a SRAM or ALCM carrier, then a B-70 is pointless. B-1A was cancelled, too..
2. Why would you need to bomb Al Qaeda from over 80k feet is beyond me :confused: Did they even have shoulder-fired SAM?
3. The same way I don't think that the hesitation to drop bombs on Iran had anything to do with lack of trust in capabilities of B-2A or BGM-109. It was politically undesirable, plain and simple.
Posts: 1,179
By: BIGVERN1966 - 23rd October 2015 at 03:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In the case of the SR-71 v Mig 25 / 31, a Mig 25 successfully got an intercept well within the AA-6's no escape zone on an SR-71 over the Baltic during the 1980s and was seen to do so by a NATO long range radar located in West Berlin. B-70 was canned because there were cheaper ways and more efficeve ways of doing its mission (ICBM, SLBM, B-52 at low level, Etc.)
Posts: 177
By: Sundog - 23rd October 2015 at 04:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, it wouldn't. That has to do with the L/D ratio. It made it efficient at cruise. The design load of the XB-70 wasn't much different from the SR-71's and at those speeds, you don't add a lot of load on the airframe. Maneuverability at MACH 3 is something of an oxymoron.
Posts: 584
By: Robbiesmurf - 23rd October 2015 at 06:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
True but one A12 was actually struck by a piece of a salvo of missiles. They found it embedded in the structure when it landed after the mission..
One of the problems with the A12/SR71 with turns was unstarts. It took them quite a while to fix that.
Posts: 162
By: logical1 - 23rd October 2015 at 13:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But the question is-----------were the target drones able to turn at high altitude like a B-70 with their huge wing area, and compression lift? The other point is that during these test, they knew where and when the target drones would be flying.Posts: 162
By: logical1 - 23rd October 2015 at 13:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Pretty hard to recall an ICBM once fired.Posts: 162
By: logical1 - 23rd October 2015 at 13:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So if maneuverability is is an oxymoron for a B-70 with a huge wing, and compression lift, it not for a missile with small fins?Posts: 353
By: sandiego89 - 23rd October 2015 at 14:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 23rd October 2015 at 14:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A missile doesn't have to worry about killing the crew. Look up how many g an AAM or SAM pulls.
Posts: 3,259
By: TooCool_12f - 23rd October 2015 at 14:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Forget it, @ M3.0 and 70000ft you'd have hard time pulling even 2 G's with the B-70 (and if you tried your aircraft and your speed would drop like a stone anyway...). Any "turn" is a barely bent straight line and any missile with sufficient energy to reach you will be able to intercept you .
Posts: 3,765
By: Sintra - 23rd October 2015 at 14:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Because its CPFH would rival the equivalent hourly cost of the USS Gerald Ford?
I'll get me coat... :)
Cheers
Posts: 2,814
By: Levsha - 23rd October 2015 at 14:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
At 70,000 feet the air is probaly too thin for a guided missile to turn effectively. At the SR-71's altitude - 85,000 feet - guided missiles probably don't turn very well at all. Let's not forget as well, that both the B-70 and SR-71 carried extremely powerful electronic countermeasures - you can speculate yourself how effective this ECM might have been.
Again, an alleged successful intercept due to the SR-71's flight plan being quite well known. Hell, even the Swedish air force they got a successful intercept of spyplane over the Baltic with their SAAB Viggens.
Posts: 491
By: BarnesW - 23rd October 2015 at 15:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 1,311
By: Dr Strangelove - 23rd October 2015 at 15:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Built the AMT kit of the XB70 a number of years back, struck by its futuristic design, wonderful looking aeroplane.
One thing I do recall thinking, is the fun taxying this beast would've been, seeing how far the nose leg is behind the c0ckpit.
Posts: 2,814
By: Levsha - 23rd October 2015 at 15:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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?