Riain
Banned
Or perhaps 2x+ speed advantage isn't what's required since a SAM engagement isn't a tail-chase dogfight. The B70's problem isn't the SA5, it's all the SA5s as well as the Mig25s in between.
B-1A vs. B-1B
- Thread starter Delta Force
- Start date
Or perhaps 2x+ speed advantage isn't what's required since a SAM engagement isn't a tail-chase dogfight. The B70's problem isn't the SA5, it's all the SA5s as well as the Mig25s in between.
The Soviets, however, DID build an interceptor to counter the XB-70. Built almost 2,000 of them. That is what the MiG-25 was designed to deal with (MiG 31 added a rather impressive set of capabilities, but it is still a Mach 3 interceptor)
It's what the Mig-25 was built for. However, there's no record of Mach 3 actually being achieved by the plane in stable, sustainable flight, and the only instance I've ever run across at all of Mach 3 speed was in a zoom climb by an Egyptian AF pilot in the '70s. And even then the maneuver totalled the airframe, had to be scrapped. The math and engineering behind the -25/-31 were certainly impressive, but they simply weren't built to the specs they needed to be to take a production model Valkyrie.
The thing is, just matching a bomber isn't that useful for an interceptor. It has to beat the bomber's performance in speed, altitude and reaction ability to defeat it. Even adding guided missiles doesn't do much if the missiles themselves aren't so hot (bear in mind, the era of the Foxbat and Valkyrie was also the era where all-aspect IR wasn't ready for combat use, and Semi-Active Radar Homing sucked out loud under real-life conditions, as the AIM-4 and AIM-7 both demonstrated in Vietnam).
@Riain, it's been said again and again that the Blackbird (a rather anaemic and limited-capability bird compared to a notional production-ready B-70) has never been downed by the entire SYSTEM of such missiles and fighters as the SA-5 and Foxbat. Do you really think an entire force of planes that can fly as high and fast as a Blackbird, in addition to having combat ECM and the ability to shoot back would do any worse? Of course the Soviets would try to counter the plane, it's only logical. However, there's a difference between understanding a threat, and being in any position to DO anything about it. IMO their best bet against the Valkyrie would've either build up their ICBM force and relying on counter-value deterrence to ward off the Americans (worked well enough in OTL), or maybe turn THIS into an interceptor...their AAM tech had better get a shot in the arm, even then.
Last edited:
Standard operating procedure was to avoid fly overs of enemy airspace, taking pictures sideways at high altitude.
Perhaps. But China, North Korea, Egypt, Libya, Vietnam, etc. (many of whom were no slouches in Air Defence capabilities or training, and with gear like the Mig-25 and SA-5) have all tried to take down overflying SR-71s. And after roughly 4,000 shoot-down attempts, not a one came close to downing a Blackbird. The fact that SOP was to not overfly the USSR is irrelevant to the fact that the technical details still favored the flyer over the defense.
Last edited:
Delta Force
Banned
Adjust everything for inflation and assume the B-70 costs twice as much as a B-1, and that's where those figures come from. The B-70 was designed for sustained flight under conditions similar to an oven, actively cooled itself with fuel prior to burning it, and still ran so hot that avionics were placed in the fuel tanks to avoid overheating. All those construction techniques and materials are going to cost a lot of money, especially in the 1960s when they aren't industry standard yet.
Also, the running costs would have been massive. Each B-70 would have been equipped with six General Electric J93 turbojets and had 300,000 pounds (136,100 kg)/46,745 gallons (117,000 liters) of JP-6 jet fuel, a special fuel developed just for the J93. With the cancellation of the F-108, that fuel standard not only supported one engine, but one aircraft, the B-70. For safety reasons you can't just redesign the aircraft to accept standard JP-4 or JP-5, the difference between those fuels and high temperature JP-6 and JP-6 is like the difference between gasoline and diesel. Since high speed aircraft leaked fuel on the ground (they were designed so the parts would fit together properly at speed) and ran hot, you wouldn't want to risk a fire by using standard fuels.
The B-70 might have been designed to use B-52 air base infrastructure, but everything else about it is new and quite expensive. The difference in cost between Mach 2 and Mach 3 is massive.
I think the Soviets actually did have plans to build an interceptor version of the Sukhoi T-4 if the B-70 program had gone ahead.
As you've pointed out yourself, the development of ICBMs pushed nations into developing ABM missiles (and the Russians have several systems that claim to be able to intercept ICBMs, it's not just Moscow covered if they're right).
If bombers had carried on developing rather being replaced by ICBMs then countries would have carried on trying to counter them too. That's how weapons development has worked since the first man ever picked a stick up and hit someone with it.
The Soviets may not have had the technology when the bomber was introduced, but once it was they'd have done what they could to get the technology, whether that be bigger SAMs, better engines for fighters, more capable AAMs or whatever.
Riain
Banned
Why is the blackbird anaemic and limited in capability? As I understand it with a TEB fuel boost it could reach 105,000ft and mach 3.5, limited by the shock waves from the flared forward fuselage reaching the engine intakes.
The problem isn't so much that B70s will be shot down or have to abort their mission but how this affect nuclear strategy and the SIOP. The ability to defend against the B70 throws an extra amount of risk with regards to nuclear planning: will the defences shoot down 21% or 29%, or will less be shot down but turned away instead and be available for followup missions or get caught on the ground? What's more this is a moveable feast, a radar, computer or missile upgrade will throw out these calculations, but SAC knew the prospects weren't ever going to get better.
Certainly not anaemic by the performance metrics of speed and altitude, but limited in capability only in that it wasn't designed to be a bomber, had a shorter range, and could not as efficiently turn, I guess (although the B-70 was hardly an agile beast). It actually employed advanced technologies that the XB-70 did not, including superior high temperature metallurgy.
There certainly is a lot of rumor being bandied about on this thread re. missile evasions and Russian interception attempts. Very little of which is coming from reviewable sources.
I'm somewhat amused that there is so much support for a bomber that was cancelled in 1961 and that Eisenhower took a dim view of the program that ultimately led to it.
Dayton Kitchens
Banned
The B-70 program was canceled more due to economics rather than a lack of capability (much like the British TSR2 and the Canadian Arrow though of course both radically different from the B-70).
The basic argument often being made "here is a 100 million dollar aircraft, here are 1 million dollar missiles" and they do basically the same thing (supposedly).
People have this image of the west during the Cold War being amazing generous with defense budgets and developing weapons systems.
In fact during the heart of the Cold War from presidents as diverse as Eisenhower and Carter there were major efforts to cut back and economize on defense spending.
The basic argument often being made "here is a 100 million dollar aircraft, here are 1 million dollar missiles" and they do basically the same thing (supposedly).
People have this image of the west during the Cold War being amazing generous with defense budgets and developing weapons systems.
In fact during the heart of the Cold War from presidents as diverse as Eisenhower and Carter there were major efforts to cut back and economize on defense spending.
And in a nuclear conflict, those SAMs are going to be armed with nuclear warheads as well.
I don't think you really realize just how badly you're underestimating surface to air missile technology from the era. The US Army's Nike-Zeus was first test launched in 1959, and had an effective range of over 400 km, and a max ceiling of 280 km, and would top out at over 12,000 km/hr.
The Soviets developed comparable weapons for the sole purpose of shooting down incoming ICBMs. ICBM reentry vehicles are much faster, harder targets than mach 3 high altitude bombers. It's not a matter of technological capability, it's a question of how much you're willing to spend on your air defense system.
The B-70 was simply a white elephant, and there's no way around it.
The Nike-Zeus is a ABM system not a SAM. Why does that make a difference? A ABM system is built to hit a target that doesn't maneuver. Which is a incoming warhead on a ballistic trajectory. While it is a difficult target all you need to do is plot where the warhead will be in the future which is easy because it doesn't maneuver and make sure the missile and warhead interrupt. A B-70 can easily change its heading and maneuver in a un-predictable fashion. As soon as a B-70 detects a missile launch it can change it's flight path a ICBM re-entry system doesn't do this.
Also can you provide a reference for your 12,000 Km/Hr speed claim on the Nike-Zeus? What I can find for reference the missile tops out between Mach 4-5. Which doesn't leave it enough energy to seriously threaten a B-70.
Where are you getting your reference for what a production run of B-70's would cost? Also as far as JP-6 and JP-5, GE certified the J93 engine to run on JP-5 during the last part of the test program and the last test flights used JP-5. Also the B-70 didn't leak while on the ground. A high speed aircraft doesn't have to leak on the ground like a SR-71. That was more a problem with the sealants on the SR-71. If you have references for the B-70 leaking fuel like this on the ground please provide them. If the B-70 had go into regular production and service with SAC I doubt their would have been a issue with getting JP-6 considering the quantities of fuel that SAC would have been ordering from manufacturers.
Dayton Kitchens
Banned
I call BS on the Nike Zeus 17,000 mph speed as well.
That kind of speed would be just short of the required to put a payload into low Earth orbit.
In addition to ICBM warheads being effectively unable to maneuver (despite claims to the contrary by both sides over the years), ICBM and SLBM warheads are pretty much launched at fixed targets from cities to military bases to missile silos.
When you know the targets of missile warheads, you can rather easily predict all possible attack vectors and plot your potential intercepts accordingly.
That kind of speed would be just short of the required to put a payload into low Earth orbit.
In addition to ICBM warheads being effectively unable to maneuver (despite claims to the contrary by both sides over the years), ICBM and SLBM warheads are pretty much launched at fixed targets from cities to military bases to missile silos.
When you know the targets of missile warheads, you can rather easily predict all possible attack vectors and plot your potential intercepts accordingly.
Emphasis mine; technically there ARE some ICBM warheads that can maneuver (they're called MaRVs, "Maneuverable reentry vehicle"), as some will likely point out here on the site. However, you're still correct in terms of interceptability, as they can only change course by a degree or two to improve their CEP, and NOT use it as a dodging feature as often purported (think about it, how credible is it that an AI able to process incoming targeting signals and dodge accordingly in a weight-critical spaceborne body that already has to deliver a dense-as-fuck nuclear weapon is remotely possible in the '70s and 80s?
). Totally irrelevant to the ABM picture as a result, especially if one uses nuclear-tipped ABMs. THIS is a pretty good essay on the different ICBM payloads fielded in history, and their "unique" characteristics. Just my own $0.02EDIT: On the interception of ICBMs subject, it's worth noting that IIRC the Privthi BMD suite used by India conducted successful intercepts of multiple IRBM warheads with guidance mode turned off using just math around 2009 or so. And on the OP, bear in mind that ABMs make terrible SAMs, given the totally different flight characteristics of aircraft and RVs. Just saying "nuclear warhead" in a SAM context matters not if the missile and its launch infrastructure are geared toward BMD, an adversary that flies in ballistic arcs. Also, bear in mind that even nuclear-tipped SAMs are almost never above 5kt. yield, with a blast radius (using NUKEMAP) at 75,000 ft. of around 1.72 square miles...how is that gonna hinder a B-70 with even remotely decent launch detection and flying at over Mach 3?
Last edited:
The Soviet's would work on developing a counter. However I suspect that any counter to the B-70 would have been much more difficult to build than the counter to the B-1 bomber. The B-1 was relatively easily countered with radar and Aircraft that could simply look down and fire at a target trying to fly low and fast. The Soviet's tried to develop counters to the SR-71 and they where never really successful at that. Considering the B-70 had the ability to maneuver better than the SR-71 and would have had much better ECM on board I doubt they would have had any more success against the B-70.
However overall this is the crux of my argument. The B-1 A or B isn't as survivable as the B-70 because flying low and near mach-1 against a Soviet Air Defense systems wouldn't work as well as flying high and mach 3+. So historically the US spent money to develop the B-70 and then produce 2 prototypes and then have a flight test program with those two prototypes. They then spent more money to develop the B-1A and build 4 prototypes and flight test them. They then turned around and re-designed the B-1A into the B-1B and flight tested this aircraft and then built 100 of them. That is a lot of money spent on development of a brand new bomber that is less survivable than the B-70. Development of planes can cost a lot of money and depending on your production run can cost more than the actual procurement cost of all the aircraft for that design. if even if the B-70 cost 50% or more than double the the B-1 you don't have to pay for all that development cost for the B-1A and B-1B.
All because somehow the shooting down of a sub-sonic surveillance plane in 1960 means that a aircraft flight high is easier to shoot-down than a aircraft flying less than Mach 1 and down low? To me this doesn't make any sense, especially in light of the historical track records of attempts to intercept the SR-71 with SAM's. The SR-71 demonstrated the re-world ability to enter any airspace it wanted and complete it's mission. Which to me proves without any doubt that flying high and fast makes your aircraft very survivable against a Air Defense system.
Err, Jello quoted 12,000 km/hr not 17,000 mph which would put it in a higher hypersonic (Mach 7-10) category. This isn't unreasonable given that similar (although newer) missiles with similar specs (Some of the Russian S-300 family, the Israeli Arrow 3, and some in the US Standard missile family) are stated to have such speeds. Published specs for the Nike-Zeus indicated an ambiguous >Mach 4 speed but not an absolute max. speed.
Anyway, we are talking of a missile that never went operational used as an example of a SAM (or more properly in this case, an ABM) that could take out a never operational Mach 3 bomber.
Last edited:
Dayton Kitchens
Banned
Point of fact, American Sprint ABMs (part of the two pronged Safeguard system of the early 1970s) which were designed to intercept ICBMs at altitudes of about 100,000 feet had warheads of FIVE MEGATONS IIRC.
But they were not designed to kill warheads by explosive force (thought that would've been nice). The massive warheads were designed to produce a neutron burst (enhanced radiation warhead) that disabled the incoming warheads.
Reputedly it would have also generated an EMP with fratricidal effects on both the missiles it was targeting and to the radar systems detecting the threat and guiding the ABM.
Last edited:
I could see the possibility of that happening, depending on the level of counter-EMP preparedness built into the launching side's RADAR sites. Of course, EMP is an oft-quoted side effect of nuclear initiations, despite the fact that most military-grade equipment in the nuclear/strategic arena is not only shielded but hardened (Silicon-on-Sapphire circuiting being one of the more use- and cost-effective methods).