The Need for Speed: Technology Thread

[Delta Force]

The Boeing Brothers

Performing a Minimum Interval Takeoff in the B-47 was a hazardous operation due
to the low performance of the jet engines, forcing reliance on water injection and
RATO rockets. A engine failure or other mishap during MITO takeoff could rapidly
lead to disaster.

Boeing was a major supplier of early jet aircraft for Strategic Air Command, starting with its B-47 Stratojet. While many of the design features of the aircraft later went on to play a major role in the development of subsonic bombers and jetliners, the B-47’s swept wing appearance and podded engines were radical for the 1940s. While introducing Strategic Air Command to jet powered aircraft, the B-47 was hampered by early jet engine technology, requiring water injection and rocket assisted takeoff motors to get airborne when heavily loaded. Although improvements in engine technology offered the potential for a model with greater performance and efficiency, Strategic Air Command was looking forward to the delivery of the new B-58 in a few years which promised much higher speeds and performance than possible from the B-47's legacy airframe.

These two images illustrate the evolution of aerial refueling over the past 50 years, and also its heritage. The left image features a prop-driven KC-97 refueling a throttled back B-47 jet bomber.
Although an awkward arrangement from the start, the increasing performance of jet aircraft made it very dangerous as well. The 1958 collision of a B-52 with its KC-97 refueling aircraft led to the
retirement of the KC-97 by mid-1959. In contrast, the B-52 and KC-135, shown in the right image, continue to serve with the United States Air Force after over 50 years of service.

The six General Electric J47 turbojets of the B-47 were very fuel thirsty, leading to low loiter times and providing the impetus for the development of aerial refueling. The Boeing KC-97 was the first aircraft used for such refueling operations, but as jet aircraft became increasingly more powerful and common a jet powered replacement was sorely needed, as the KC-97’s maximum speed was increasingly close to the stall speed for the aircraft being refueled. While some KC-97s were converted to use turbojets, the aircraft were replaced by the Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker starting in the mid-1950s. The Stratotanker continues in service today, one of only a few aircraft to have served for 50 years with its original operator.

The B-36, B-52, and B-58 served together alongside each other in Strategic Air
Command for only a year before the B-36's retirement in 1959.

While the B-47 was retired from frontline service in the 1960s in favor of the new B-58 Hustler, its bigger brother the B-52 continues in service with Strategic Air Command. The B-52 was selected to replace Convair’s massive B-36 Peacekeeper as Strategic Air Command’s long range bomber, beating out the jet powered Convair YB-60, itself a B-36 derivative. Although many in the Air Force pushed for the B-52 to be retired in favor of supersonic bombers during the 1960s, the aircraft continues in service because of its excellent loitering and conventional bombing capabilities derived from its subsonic speed. These abilities proved crucial during the Second Korean War, with the B-52 and its soon to be retired predecessor the B-47 dropping more bombs over North Korea than were dropped during all of World War II, a role which will be discussed more in depth in future installments.

-----

This is essentially a historical update, with nothing really having diverged from history, except for that part about the Second Korean War of course. I did come across a few interesting videos while researching this part of the timeline you might be interested in watching:

B-36 Peacekeeper Documentary
B-47 RATO Takeoff
KC-97 Refueling B-47

 

[Delta Force]

Bumped for replies.

 

[Just Leo]

Still waiting to see where you're going. I was disappointed with the Boeings captioned DC-8s.

 

[Delta Force]

Still waiting to see where you're going. I was disappointed with the Boeings captioned DC-8s.

The problem was that OTL the Boeing 707 took over all those roles, so I was stuck with no stock photos or even photo manipulations of DC-8s doing those roles. Unfortunately for any role in which the Boeing 707 was used OTL the aircraft will have to be used as the stock photo for lack of any DC-8s filling the role.

The next few updates should be more interesting and require less stock photos. I have the B-58 up next, and the aircraft of Air Defense Command will follow afterwards.

 

[Delta Force]

SAC Goes Supersonic: The B-58 Hustler

An early photograph of the B-58 with its fuel and weapons pods, as well as its
payload of four nuclear bombs. The three separate crew compartments can be seen
as well in this picture with their hatches open.

While subsonic jetliners were entering service with the airline industry and revolutionizing travel, supersonic bombers were revolutionizing strategic deterrence. The Convair B-58 Hustler entered service with Strategic Air Command in early 1959, being rushed into service to counter the deployment of the Soviet Myasishchev M-50 “Atomic Bomber.” The shortened flight test regimen is believed to have contributed to the B-58’s poor early safety record, with many aircraft being lost due to control system failure.

A diagram of the B-58 escape capsule ejection sequence. The standard sequence for ejections to occur was from front to back, preventing the capsules from colliding with each other during
ejection. In the event of a crash on takeoff the procedure was not followed, with crew members ejecting on their own.

Rapid action by Convair saved SAC’s star bomber program, but not before the loss of 18 aircraft in accidents. Fortunately for many B-58 flight crews, the Hustler was the first aircraft equipped with an escape capsule system, vital for an aircraft capable of a top speed of Mach 2 at an altitude of 70,000 feet. The capsule also allowed the crew to continue to fly the aircraft with the clamshell doors closed, allowing for safe operation of the aircraft in the event of loss of cabin pressure. However, the capsule did have its drawbacks. Crewmembers with boots larger than a size 12 were at risk of losing their toes in the event of capsule closure, and one unfortunate pilot even suffered a severed arm during an emergency ejection. Despite the B-58’s initially high loss rate and its high performance, the fatality rate was relatively low.

A photograph of a B-58A under construction, clearly showing advanced construction
techniques like the widespread use of aluminum honeycomb structure and fiberglass
materials.

The crew escape capsule was not the only innovation the B-58 brought to aircraft design. The aircraft pioneered the use of aluminum honeycomb structure, a technique vital to supersonic aircraft. The aircraft also featured one of the first applications of widespread aircraft pressurization, with the wheel wells and electronics being climate controlled along with the crew cockpits in order to protect them from the heat of the Mach 2 flight environment. The electronics themselves were highly advanced as well, with the B-58 featuring the first application of verbal audio warnings for dangerous flight conditions, advanced star and inertial navigation systems, and advanced targeting radar providing ten times greater accuracy than previous systems.

The SA-2 Guideline entered service with the Soviet military in the late 1950s.
Although it was the second surface-to-air missile system to enter service (after the
SA-1 Guild) it was more mobile and widely exported. Since its introduction it has
been supplied to many Soviet client states around the world and has played a
prominent role in the Arab-Israeli wars and the Second Korean War.

While impressive, the technological advances in the B-58’s airframe and avionics failed to prevent its role as a high altitude supersonic bomber from being made obsolete by advances in missile technology. Key targets within the Soviet Union were made virtually invulnerable to high altitude bombing by the introduction of surface-to-air missiles, whose flight ceiling and top speed were far greater than any manned aircraft could hope to achieve. At the same time, intercontinental ballistic missiles were becoming increasingly more easy to maintain and increasingly more accurate. To many experts it was as if, to quote President Eisenhower, “…we were talking about bows and arrows… [in the] time of gunpowder when we spoke of bombers in the missile age." Ironically, the same missile technology than many claimed rendered aircraft like the B-58 obsolete helped to revitalize the aircraft through the development of air-launched missiles like the AGM-48 Skybolt.

The B-58B introduced canards, improving the low altitude performance of the aircraft.
The addition of an internal bomb-bay for carrying conventional bombs and wing
pylons for additional fuel tanks or missiles further enhanced the aircraft's arsenal
and flexibility, making it a useful aircraft in the Second Korean War.

The introduction of the B-58B in 1963 helped ease doubts about the survival of strategic aircraft in a combat environment. The addition of aerodynamic improvements, canards, and a new turbofan variant of the General Electric J79 engine, along with improved terrain-following radar, helped improve aircraft performance at low altitudes and allow for nap-of-the-earth flight. Rather than flying at high speeds at high altitude, the B-58B was intended to carry out a low altitude and low speed penetration of enemy airspace and then perform a high altitude supersonic dash to the target. The B-58B would be assisted in its mission by the North American F-108 Rapier, which would engage enemy ground and air based defenses to clear the way for the bombers.

The High Virgo missile was the first ASAT missile available to the USAF and was used solely by the B-58 during its service life. It became the first ASAT to
conduct a successful satellite interception, destroying Explorer 9 in late 1963. The nuclear test had the unintended effect of disabling many other satellites
in Earth orbit and damaging electronics on the Hawaiian islands, contributing greatly to the understanding of the EMP effects of nuclear weapons.

Along with its new performance upgrades and role, the B-58B also received new weapons capabilities. A new internal bomb-bay was added to the aircraft for the carriage of conventional bombs, along with pylons for missiles or additional fuel tanks. Typical armament consisted of the Skybolt GAM-87 air-to-ground missile, an armament carried by other USAF and RAF strategic bomber aircraft. Due to its high service ceiling and climb rate the B-58 was also selected as the primary aircraft for deploying the nuclear armed High Virgo ASAT missile. The B-58 and High Virgo carried out the first successful satellite interception in late 1963, destroying Explorer 9 and having the unintended side effect of disabling many other satellites in Earth orbit. Electronics on the Hawaiian islands were also damaged by the test, which contributed greatly to the understanding of the EMP effects of nuclear weapons.

-----

The next update will be on Air Defense Command.

 

[Delta Force]

Bump again. These updates seem to be buried before anyone has a chance to see them. Must be because it is so late GMT and East Coast time.

 

[phx1138]

Bump once more, in hope this isn't gone for good...

 

[LostCosmonaut]

Indeed, this looks to be a quite interesting timeline. Looks like a few of the same things as what's going to show up in mine.

 

[Delta Force]

Ironically I was about to end this timeline from lack of interest and post up a DC-9 I had saved for later. I'm going to see if a few more people comment on the storyline thus far.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

I'm still watching it.

 

[sharlin]

Why have I not read this TL before, superb stuff! And that capsule on the magnificent looking B-58 looks bloody lethal!

 

[Bahamut-255]

Been meaning to post her for some time now. Very interesting scenario being developed here. Will be keeping an eye on this.

 

[Delta Force]

I am writing up a new entry right now. I'm just bumping this right now to bring it to the attention of those who have not seen this timeline yet and to let those who are following it know I am still working on it. As stated in the last entry Air Defense Command is going to be the focus of this timeline, and with "atomic bombers" for the US and Canadians to worry about (and the Europeans in later entries) it will have a few butterflies.

 

[Delta Force]

Texas DEW

Joe-1, the first Soviet nuclear test, occurred August 22, 1949. Combined with the
outbreak of the First Korean War a few months afterwards, the test brought the
possibility of nuclear attack to the attention of American defense planners.

While Strategic Air Command and it's outspoken head Curtis LeMay received significant amounts of publicity during the early and mid-1950s, Aerospace Defense Command was silently laboring to defend North America against Soviet nuclear attack. Initially this important role was unappreciated by American military leaders, with ADC relying on World War II surplus radars and assets borrowed from Tactical Air Command to complete its mission. The detonation of the first Soviet nuclear bomb in late 1949 and the outbreak of the First Korean War shortly afterwards made the importance of the air defense role clear and more urgent than ever to American defense planners. In early 1951 ADC was assigned dedicated assets from Tactical Air Command, but a ground-control intercept system for the Atomic Age did not yet exist.

The Alsask Radar Dome, part of the Pinetree Line radar network. Alsask and the
other radar stations in the Pinetree Line were decommissioned in the late 1980s.

While radar systems capable of detecting Soviet bombers attacking from the North were in existence during the early 1950s as part of the Pinetree and Mid-Canada Lines, their close proximity to American and Canadian population centers meant the systems would provide little time to respond. The radar technology used in these initial systems were also incapable of detecting aircraft flying at low altitudes. In addition, the United States Air Force and the Royal Canadian Air Force did not have an integrated air defense system. It was not until the completion of the Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line and the establishment of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) in 1958 that a system capable of providing sufficient advanced warning of Soviet attack was in service.

A test launch of the RIM-8 Talos missile by a Texas Tower. Although a long ranged
and effective system, the Talos and the other components of the Texas Tower
network were decommissioned in the mid-1960s after only a few years of service,
having been leapfrogged by developments in air defense technologies.

The United States Navy contribution to the air defense network consisted of Texas Towers, long range range radar and missile oil platforms located off the East Coast of the United States and Canada. While similar defenses had been pioneered by the United Kingdom during World War II in the form of Maunsell Forts, the Texas Towers represented the ultimate evolution of the concept. Apart from the command platform with the long range radars and living facilities, each cluster included additional platforms equipped with Bendix RIM-8 Talos surface to air missiles armed with 5 kiloton W30 warheads. In the event of Soviet attack it was expected that these platforms would be able to significantly reduce the number of aircraft attacking the Northeastern United States and Eastern Canada, reducing the burden placed on interceptor aircraft. Although highly advanced, these platforms were all decommissioned by the mid-1960s with the introduction of mach 3 interceptor aircraft and the changing threat spectrum posed by the Soviet Union.

 

[Shevek23]

...these platforms were all decommissioned by the mid-1960s with the introduction of mach 3 interceptor aircraft and the changing threat spectrum posed by the Soviet Union.

And that's the divergence; as far as I know everything in the post before was pretty much as OTL.

I'm surprised Air Defense Command didn't enjoy a higher status in the late 40s and early 50s, but of course back then the continental USA was simply out of range of any Soviet strikes. OTL at any rate I gather ADCOM gained quite a lot of prestige because of its mission of home defense, and a certain amount of cultural inertia made the interceptor command to some extent the face of the Air Force. You know how in that Star Trek episode where the Enterprise is thrown back into the 1960s and they wind up beaming aboard an interceptor pilot? Orange flight suit--ADCOM wore orange flight suits, the better to be rescued in case they had to bail out.

But by the time that Trek episode aired, ADCOM was dying politically. Precisely because they did not get the high-speed interceptors your timeline has them getting. My Dad was an ADCOM interceptor pilot you see, he wore an orange flight suit (except during tours of duty to Asia, which were under different commands) from shortly before I was born until ADCOM ceased to exist in the early 1980s, whereupon its assets were absorbed into TAC (green flight suits, as its forward pilots might be parachuting into hostile territory where they might not want to be too visible!) And, for the first time since your divergence here, that is since the early '60s, what was left of the defensive interceptor squadrons got new airplanes. From the early 60s until ADCOM's demise my Dad flew F-106's. He loved that airplane. But what the ADCOM brass wanted to replace it with OTL was the F-12, that is, the interceptor version of the Lockheed design best known for its scout version, the SR-71.

But I know of at least 2 other designs for high-speed long-range interceptors in the works at the same time as the Skunk Works was developing these versions. I think it was North American making the B-70 Valkyrie and they proposed an escort fighter design that was a scaled-down version of the same airframe, I think it was supposed to become the F-108. And someone else, I forget who, maybe Republic, was going to make yet another ultra-high speed interceptor that had an extremely radical looking design--it was going to be so streamlined there was no way to give the pilot a canopy with a proper view, they had to be content with little portholes plus some kind of periscope arrangement; it too was to exceed Mach 3. (IIRC that was to be the F-103).

OTL all of these were cancelled on the theory that first of all the enemy would probably be attacking with ballistic missiles and not bombers, and secondly if they did choose to try to use bombers ground-based unmanned SAMs could probably accomplish the job of shooting them down both cheaper and more certainly than any manned interceptor could.

So remind me, why do they reason differently in your timeline?

You'd probably please my alt-Dad no end (probably, he really did love the -106 and I suspect even if he'd love these ultrahot things as much, which is a coin toss, their massive costs of operations probably means everyone gets less flight time in them). But why does it make sense to Congress and the White House to soldier on with these superfast manned interceptors that no one OTL really found it worthwhile to develop?

 

[phx1138]

...why do they reason differently in your timeline?

As to why, I'll leave that to Delta Force. As for how they might, how's this? BVR missiles (& SAMs) are fine in an environment where there's no prospect of friendlies. Can USAF be certain that will always pertain? (They've presumed OTL & been wrong...) Also, unlike missiles, fighters (& bombers) can be called back. So, is there somebody who sees the prospect of furballs involving friendlies & decides being able to separate them out & only shoot the bandits might be a good thing? (Yeah, I can just see some genius proposing linking missile guidance to IFF...)

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

How did I not notice this?

This timeline is stellar!

 

[LostCosmonaut]

*Stuff about Mach 3 interceptors*

Yep, the two Mach 3 interceptor projects that never made it to the prototype stage were the F-108 and F-103. The F-108 did indeed take a lot of hardware from the XB-70, I know it would have used the J-93 just as the XB-70 did. Most of the models I've seen also show it with drooping wingtips, so it most likely would have been somewhat of a waverider like the Valkyrie.


The F-103 was a bit earlier, in the 50s, and while a good concept, I think it was just out of reach for the technology of the time. If I recall correctly, it would have used the J67, which is basically an uprated Olympus (as was used on the Vulcan and Concorde). The J67 would have modified so that the afterburner could be used as a ramjet combustion chamber. Not sure how well that it would have worked in practice. Sticking a J58 in it might have worked though, provided the inlet design was done well enough to allow for Mach 3. The Blackbird had an issue where if the airflow into the engines got disturbed and the inlet controls couldn't respond quick , the engine would "unstart" (basically undergo a compressor stall), which resulted in a severe loss of power, and usually the pilot getting thrashed around quite severely. I remember reading that the issue first came to Lockheed's attention when a test pilot came into the Skunk Work's offices with a massive dent in his helmet from where it had impacted the canopy.

Interestingly, the Blackbird might have been able to go faster if it had been designed purely for speed. A lot of effort in the design went into reducing the RCS, which ended up being extremely good, especially considering the aircraft was designed without supercomputers or such. The need to reduce RCS is part of the reason why they went through 12 iterations of the design before they ended up with the final version (A-12).

Regarding the POD, if something happened to somehow set back ICBM or SAM development severely, that could do the trick. That would result in more development of high speed interceptors and bombers, and could potentially result in seeing the F-12 and B-70 enter service.


Finally, Delta Force, is that picture of the B-58 with canards real? I quite like it .

 

[Delta Force]

OTL all of these were cancelled on the theory that first of all the enemy would probably be attacking with ballistic missiles and not bombers, and secondly if they did choose to try to use bombers ground-based unmanned SAMs could probably accomplish the job of shooting them down both cheaper and more certainly than any manned interceptor could.

So remind me, why do they reason differently in your timeline?

You'd probably please my alt-Dad no end (probably, he really did love the -106 and I suspect even if he'd love these ultrahot things as much, which is a coin toss, their massive costs of operations probably means everyone gets less flight time in them). But why does it make sense to Congress and the White House to soldier on with these superfast manned interceptors that no one OTL really found it worthwhile to develop?

One of the things about the timeline is that some of the things I do not mention are just as important as the things I do talk about. SAGE (and computer technology) is no where near as developed in this timeline. A massive amount of money was spent solving the problem of aerial interception in OTL by developing supercomputers and computer networks that could automatically do all the work of interception (I think the only thing the pilot of an F-106 had to do under SAGE guidance was actually fire the weapons, SAGE could fly the aircraft to the target). The cost of SAGE was $12 billion in 1960s dollars, over $100 billion in present day dollars.

A more brute force method is adopted in this timeline. First nuclear warheads are used, reducing the need for advanced guidance systems for SAMs and air to air missiles. Mach 3 interceptors also allow interceptions to occur farther from population centers, "softening up" the bomber waves for layers further in such as mach 2 interceptors and long range nuclear SAMs. In other words, a mechanical solution is used to solve a problem that was solved by digital technology in OTL.

As to why, I'll leave that to Delta Force. As for how they might, how's this? BVR missiles (& SAMs) are fine in an environment where there's no prospect of friendlies. Can USAF be certain that will always pertain? (They've presumed OTL & been wrong...) Also, unlike missiles, fighters (& bombers) can be called back. So, is there somebody who sees the prospect of furballs involving friendlies & decides being able to separate them out & only shoot the bandits might be a good thing? (Yeah, I can just see some genius proposing liking missile guidance to IFF...)

ADC is using nuclear tipped missiles on the frontline interceptors because they reasonably believe that they will only be used over the Canadian Arctic and the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. This being the 1960s, no one really knows that using so many nuclear weapons at a high altitude (as would occur in a Soviet attack) is very bad for the ozone layer. In fact it was not until fairly recently that we were able to fully model the effects of nuclear weapons on the atmosphere, and with each increase in computer power the number of weapons needed to cause nuclear winter keeps going down. It is down from a few thousand large thermonuclear bombs in the models of the 1980s to 50 Hiroshima sized weapons with recent models.

That said, with computing power a few years behind OTL the machines able to figure that out will arrive 5-10 years later. The first SSTs will already have been flying for a few years by the time the first models show how bad it is for the environment. The ozone layer is really going to be feeling it in this timeline. I intend to write the timeline up until at least 2000 as the butterflies from the continuation of the Soviet Union and the massive environmental damage will start to get so large around then that the timeline will become almost as much about environmentalism as aerospace.

Finally, Delta Force, is that picture of the B-58 with canards real? I quite like it .

The B-58B was never built, the image is a very well done Photoshop I found.

 

[Just Leo]

Another forgotten Hustler variant with greater internal volume.