B-70 produced.

They seriously didn't design the B-70 with an air to air refueling capability? How in the hell did that come across as a good idea at the time? Especially since that would remove most of the advantages from having B-70's on airborne alert. A mach 3 aircraft can travel 1000 nautical miles in about half an hour, meaning that practically a B-70 off the coast of Norway would be capable of reaching Moscow prior to ICBM's (with a flight time of roughly 45 minutes) arriving. However, the lack of aerial refueling kind of renders that point moot I'd imagine.

I have no found a Xb-70 documents, what so ever that issue the air refueling capability.

Given the document mentioned earlier, I'm very much leaning towards a view that the primary reason for the cancellation of the XB-70 was that, as was admitted at the time, it was an incredibly expensive aircraft, with the prototypes that were built coming in at around $700 million average cost per prototype and $1.5 billion for the whole program (assuming that figure is for 1960 dollars, that's literally $5 billion per aircraft and $12 billion for the whole program in 2017 dollars)

The B-70 had to be made of expensive Materials like light steel sandwich panel, today a common, but in 1960s very expensive aerospace stuff !
Next to that was North American unsparing with expensive and exotic materials, like 24 carat gold used in parts of A-5 Vigilante or XB-70 for it's Heat reflective property.
also would be the B-70 price higher, wenn the Pye Wacket rocket is included.
and there issue of operating cost, the B-70 is a fuel boozer because it's six General Electric YJ93 turbojet engine, making also the B-70 the LOUDEST Aircraft ever build !
Oh by the way, it expensive jet fuel JP-6 was special design for the B-70 and got also canceled after end of XB-70 program.

the High operating cost was also reason why supersonic B-58 was pulled out of service...
 
Not in the least. To the extent policy is determined by nuclear weapons, the ICBMs sprouting up will be far more important than a few bombers.
About the only change I could see policy wise would be that the Soviet PVO gets more in the way of resources. After all, even when the U.S. moved away from manned bombers as the primary nuclear delivery system OTL and scaled down it's own investments in air defense, the Soviets maintained the PVO at a fairly high level (and disproportionate to the actual threat). If the B-70 were to enter service, I can only imagine they'd be able to increase their share of spending since there would be an actual threat from Mach 3 high altitude bombers that they could counter. And, between more MiG-25's (or faster aircraft), better command and control systems, and higher performance SAM's that can reliably intercept a B-70 type aircraft (put me somewhere between "invulnerable to interception" and "would be shot down easily" on the combat abilities of a B-70 circa the early 1960's), that won't be cheap. So maybe a B-70 type aircraft entering into service would end up being worth it for the U.S., it'd accelerate some of the economic problems the Soviet's had managing their civil and military economies by a couple years.
 
Of 116 B-58s build, more or less 30 crashed. Abysmal safety record.

[F-104] BITCH PLEASE! :p

But blimey, thats an abysmal record for the B-58. Didn't they have that weird fully coccooning ejection system/capsule thing? I recall reading that was a fucker too when it came to maintenance and actually working.
 
With the B-70s and B-58s in use in 1970, would the Soviets and Red Chinesebe more agreeable?

nope, ICBM with multiple warheads and low-level flight Bombers make the US the Soviets and Red Chinesebe more agreeable on negotiations table in 1970s.

and during 1970s the B-58 Mach 2 bomber would have be become obsolete, thanks to Mig-25 Mach 3 interceptor...
that means was left over of the Fleet with that accident rate it would down to 64 bombers..
 
Top