Go Back   Alternate History Discussion Board > Discussion > Alternate History Discussion: After 1900

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old February 10th, 2014, 11:45 AM
Dayton Kitchens Dayton Kitchens is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 767
I think he meant 37 miles per minute.

Which means that at full on straight line speed, the B-70 would clear the blast radius of the nuclear warhead in less than two seconds.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old February 10th, 2014, 12:13 PM
Pomphis Pomphis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 86
If the blast radius is that small and the only thing to be concerned about. If I understand correctly, a B-70 would be close to itīs technical limits at full speed and use itīs fuel to cool it. How much pressure or additional heat would be enough to rupture that ? And anyway, the Bomarc used 7-10 kt. One could use larger nukes if necessary.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old February 10th, 2014, 01:14 PM
Dayton Kitchens Dayton Kitchens is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 767
Of course every nuclear warhead you have to waste by putting on top of a SAM is one less you have to use on the battlefield.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old February 10th, 2014, 05:29 PM
Delta Force Delta Force is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayton Kitchens View Post
Of course every nuclear warhead you have to waste by putting on top of a SAM is one less you have to use on the battlefield.
If you hit a bomber or missile bus before it deploys its weapons you have a return ratio higher than one (assuming it hits). The main issue is that you can't count on a single missile to hit, and you can't count on an aircraft actually flying over the site.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old February 10th, 2014, 06:58 PM
FleetMac FleetMac is offline
Southron Progressive Geek
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Ye Olde Dominion
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta Force View Post
If you hit a bomber or missile bus before it deploys its weapons you have a return ratio higher than one (assuming it hits). The main issue is that you can't count on a single missile to hit, and you can't count on an aircraft actually flying over the site.
First of all, the 37 miles per second thing was indeed a flub on my part . I meant 37 miles per minute, still more than fast enough to clear the blast radius of most nuclear-tipped SAMs with early enough detection.

And on the missile thing, it's worth bearing in mind that standard air defense doctrine is "shoot-shoot-look", wherein one shoots two missiles off the bat and then tracks their progress in intercepting the target.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old February 10th, 2014, 07:22 PM
Asnys Asnys is offline
Do Not Fear the Future
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayton Kitchens View Post
Of course every nuclear warhead you have to waste by putting on top of a SAM is one less you have to use on the battlefield.
If the US or USSR decided they needed more bombs, they could build more bombs. There are strategic and political reasons they didn't - the expense, if nothing else - but on a technical level, I don't see any major obstacles to adding another digit to the arsenals.
__________________
Toxic Stars
Atomic Skies: Happy Moonwalk Day (7/20)
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old February 10th, 2014, 07:24 PM
brovane brovane is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herzen's love-child View Post
You seem to be confusing what was hoped to be achieved by the end of a development process that never happened with what actually saw the light of day. In the real world, the SR-71 had a slightly higher service ceiling than the XB-70. 85,000 feet compared to 77,000 feet. Significantly faster? Not in what was actually built. Better EW suite? Not developed and implemented into what was actually built. Remember, the program was cancelled in '61, definitively so in '62 despite the best attempts of LeMay and Congressional allies to reinstate it. What was built was never going to be developed further, being relegated to general high speed aeronautical research.

I mean, c'mon, making claims of paper aircraft? There is a long history of designed but not built aircraft with incredible paper specifications but that never were built or if built, never achieved it in the real world. One can claim anything about such fancies.

.
Considering the protoype B-70's both achieved Mach-3 performance with AV-2 demonstrating sustained Mach-3 performance I would say the B-70 is more than a paper aircraft. All the parts where there to make a succesful Mach-3 bomber it was just Robert "Strange" McNamara that got in the way even after funding was approved by Congress.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old February 10th, 2014, 07:44 PM
Herzen's love-child Herzen's love-child is offline
hipster bon vivant
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: la costa a sinistra
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by brovane View Post
Considering the protoype B-70's both achieved Mach-3 performance with AV-2 demonstrating sustained Mach-3 performance I would say the B-70 is more than a paper aircraft. All the parts where there to make a succesful Mach-3 bomber it was just Robert "Strange" McNamara that got in the way even after funding was approved by Congress.
I wasn't calling the XB-70 a paper aircraft, merely the specs and claims that have been made for the mature operational B-70 that wasn't to be. An operational B-70 was a paper airplane, even if the basic airframe and engines were actually built (speaking of which, the airframe had some significant unresolved issues). The XB-70 never showed the superior performance claims (speed and altitude) over the SR-71 that FleetMac attributed to it. Although an operational B-70 eventually may or may not have. Although it's silly to compare 2 such disparate aircraft designed for different missions that only shared Mach 3 capabilities and little else.

Incidentally, although McNamera was one of those instrumental in eventually killing the B-70 project, the project had significant opposition pretty much from day one. Even back when Eisenhower was President. He personally was very skeptical of manned bomber projects projected to not be in service until at least 10 years in the future. There were significant concerns that advances in technology would outstrip its viability. Of course budgetary issues and the ascendancy of advocates of ICBMs and SLBMs to be the key legs of what eventually became the Strategic Arms triad were ongoing strikes against a successful B-70 program as well.

Now about that B-1A.....anyone know what became of the proposed B1R revamp of the B1B? The one that would restore Mach 2+ capabilities to the B-1 without defeating the low-altitude and semi-stealth capabilities of the B1B and even increase its loadout?
__________________
Quote:
The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen. ~ Tommy Smothers

Last edited by Herzen's love-child; February 10th, 2014 at 07:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old February 10th, 2014, 07:55 PM
brovane brovane is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herzen's love-child View Post
You seem to be confusing what was hoped to be achieved by the end of a development process that never happened with what actually saw the light of day. In the real world, the SR-71 had a slightly higher service ceiling than the XB-70. 85,000 feet compared to 77,000 feet. Significantly faster? Not in what was actually built. Better EW suite? Not developed and implemented into what was actually built. Remember, the program was cancelled in '61, definitively so in '62 despite the best attempts of LeMay and Congressional allies to reinstate it. What was built was never going to be developed further, being relegated to general high speed aeronautical research.

I mean, c'mon, making claims of paper aircraft? There is a long history of designed but not built aircraft with incredible paper specifications but that never were built or if built, never achieved it in the real world. One can claim anything about such fancies.

Furthermore, substantiated claims about intercepts of the SR-71 and if they were achieved or not are out of the public domain (still). Unless you are privy to such classified information, you don't really know and I don't really know, one way or another. There is only rumor and web tales. I'm partial to the Swedish stories about achieving radar locks on SR-71s during the Cold War. Did they really? No one with authority is talking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herzen's love-child View Post
I wasn't calling the XB-70 a paper aircraft, merely the specs and claims that have been made for the mature operational B-70 that wasn't to be. An operational B-70 was a paper airplane, even if the basic airframe and engines were actually built (speaking of which, the airframe had some significant unresolved issues). The XB-70 never showed the superior performance claims over the SR-71 that FleetMac attributed to it. Although an operational B-70 eventually may or may not have.

Incidentally, although McNamera was one of those instrumental in eventually killing the B-70 project, the project had significant opposition pretty much from day one. Even back when Eisenhower was President. He personally was very skeptical of manned bomber projects projected to not be in service until at least 10 years in the future. There were significant concerns that advances in technology would outstrip its viability. Of course budgetary issues and the ascendancy of advocates of ICBMs and SLBMs to be the key legs of what eventually became the Strategic Arms triad were ongoing strikes against a successful B-70 program as well.

Now about that B-1A.....anyone know what became of the proposed B1R revamp of the B1B? The one that would restore Mach 2+ capabilities to the B-1 without defeating the low-altitude and semi-stealth capabilities of the B1B and even increase its loadout?
AV-1 one did have AirFrame issues (Limiting speed to below Mach-3) however AV-2 did solve a lot of those problems with further maturity planned in the AV-3 AirFrame. Considering the extensive flight test data on the B-70 AirFrame from AV-1 and AV-2 flights we can fairly easily project what the actual specs would be from a fully functioning B-70. Especially when you look at the planned maturity of the GE YJ93 Engine. Even if we assume a top speed of around Mach-3.1 and ceiling of around 77,000 feet. These flight characteristics are right in the same league as the SR-71. If you are saying a fully functioning SR-71 tops out at Mach-3.1 and around 85,000 feet.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old February 10th, 2014, 09:49 PM
Herzen's love-child Herzen's love-child is offline
hipster bon vivant
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: la costa a sinistra
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by brovane View Post
AV-1 one did have AirFrame issues (Limiting speed to below Mach-3) however AV-2 did solve a lot of those problems with further maturity planned in the AV-3 AirFrame. Considering the extensive flight test data on the B-70 AirFrame from AV-1 and AV-2 flights we can fairly easily project what the actual specs would be from a fully functioning B-70. Especially when you look at the planned maturity of the GE YJ93 Engine. Even if we assume a top speed of around Mach-3.1 and ceiling of around 77,000 feet. These flight characteristics are right in the same league as the SR-71. If you are saying a fully functioning SR-71 tops out at Mach-3.1 and around 85,000 feet.
But what should give one pause in assuming characteristics of weapons systems under development are the sorry histories of birds such as the F-111 and the F-35 which experienced changes in design parameters, performance metrics, reduced funding, change orders, procurement and policy modifications, etc.etc. that in the case of the F-35 has lead to heavier weight, reduced maneuveribility, a slower top end speed, and apparently much more (or less if you will ). You often wind up with something much different than what was initially invisioned. We never will know what teething problems a mature B-70 would have gone through.

I'd also like an answer re. my question about the B-1R.
__________________
Quote:
The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen. ~ Tommy Smothers
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old February 10th, 2014, 10:09 PM
FleetMac FleetMac is offline
Southron Progressive Geek
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Ye Olde Dominion
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herzen's love-child View Post
Now about that B-1A.....anyone know what became of the proposed B1R revamp of the B1B? The one that would restore Mach 2+ capabilities to the B-1 without defeating the low-altitude and semi-stealth capabilities of the B1B and even increase its loadout?
Getting back to the OP for a second, the last I heard the project was still-born as of 2009. Which is a shame, as I think it would've been a welcome set of upgardes to the Bone fleet; in addition to the restoration of the (much-missed) -A's Mach 2+ performance, it would've apparently been equipped for AAM carriage. Granted, it's a sort of trade secret that bombers can be made capable of carrying AAMs, but it's more of a nudge-wink sort of thing. Furthermore, it seems to mostly be for last-ditch defense, whereas the B-1R would've been able to double as a long-range interceptor and not just a heavy bomber (esp. since the AIM-120D's performance has finally come to fruition).
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old February 10th, 2014, 10:25 PM
Herzen's love-child Herzen's love-child is offline
hipster bon vivant
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: la costa a sinistra
Posts: 1000 or more
Thanks. 2009? Wow, that sure died silently.
__________________
Quote:
The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen. ~ Tommy Smothers
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old February 10th, 2014, 10:26 PM
Dayton Kitchens Dayton Kitchens is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 767
The B-1R concept is still viable. And available.

But right now we're in a period of

1) Severe cutbacks to weapons systems procurement due to budget issues.

2) The common U.S. military belief that the U.S. will NEVER again fight a major conventional war and that for the next few decades all we'll be using in drones to hit terrorists and insurgents.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old February 10th, 2014, 10:48 PM
Dayton Kitchens Dayton Kitchens is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by FleetMac View Post
Getting back to the OP for a second, the last I heard the project was still-born as of 2009. Which is a shame, as I think it would've been a welcome set of upgardes to the Bone fleet; in addition to the restoration of the (much-missed) -A's Mach 2+ performance, it would've apparently been equipped for AAM carriage. Granted, it's a sort of trade secret that bombers can be made capable of carrying AAMs, but it's more of a nudge-wink sort of thing. Furthermore, it seems to mostly be for last-ditch defense, whereas the B-1R would've been able to double as a long-range interceptor and not just a heavy bomber (esp. since the AIM-120D's performance has finally come to fruition).
IIRC, most agree that the Soviets during the 1980s had the plans, technology, and means to quickly modify TU-22(26) Backfire bombers with long range air to air radars and arm them with their longest range AAMs for use against the "air bridge" of transports that would be moving U.S. soldiers to West Germany for REFORGER.

Note, I saw a Military Channel program on future air combat (part of the Dogfights series IIRC) and in it the B-1R armed with AAMs was a force multiplier. Used to bring nearly two dozen AAMs to an air battle when U.S. forces are heavily outnumbered.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old February 11th, 2014, 02:17 PM
kessock kessock is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pomphis View Post
You have to get close, yes, but OTOH you can launch multiple interceptors from different directions and the B-70 must evade all of them.

Plus the B-70 had turbojets and needed afterburners to get to mach 3. With 46,745 gallons fuel and a fuel consumption rate of 51 g per kNs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_A...s_.28XB-70A.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_YJ93

I get less than an hour at full speed. Either itīs no longer a long range bomber, or it has to fly mostly at lower speeds.
Which means you have to build multiple batteries at every target unless you prioritise....and then you have to put low level air defenses around the the BOMARCski site to prevent low level roll back missiles and then your start talking about the amount of money you put into defence vs offence. The B-70 was not a magic bullet. It was a very effective member of a triad and each part had it's part. The bomber part being able to be recalled and having an active brain as part of the weapons system to adjust to problems instead of a pre-programmed one just following its path even when things have changed.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old February 11th, 2014, 02:22 PM
Dayton Kitchens Dayton Kitchens is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 767
Even a B-70 would never cruise from the continental U.S. to a Soviet target at Mach 3.

In all probability it would go like this during a nuclear alert.

The bombers would leave the ground with their nuclear weapons (4-8 most likely) and to get away from the base (which would be targeted) they would accelerate to Mach 3 to put a reasonable amount of distance.

They would then slow down to high subsonic speed, meet with a tanker and top off their tanks and then orbit as close to Soviet air space as reasonably possible (at least a few hundred miles). If sent in to attack they would gain maximum altitude and speed to penetrate the defenses along the borders and then work their way to within range of their primary target choosing the least defended vector.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.