It does. Which is why the primary means of deterrence switched from manned bombers to ICBMs and SLBMs. Instead of responding hours later, you're dropping warheads on foreheads in 15 minutes. Once the missiles fly, there really isn't going to be much left for the bombers to do, and it won't really matter if you're hitting the target 2 hours or 6 hours later. The extreme speed of the B-70 only really matters when you're trying to hit tactical targets that appear and disappear rapidly and you need the strike platform there in minutes, not hours. In a full scale WWIII, you're hitting strategic targets that are, at minimum, semi-fixed, and can't be moved rapidly. In that case, the B-52 can do the job just fine.
USA's "Project Cancelled"
- Thread starter Riain
- Start date
IMHO The B70 was the type of system that would have made some sense in the late 1960s and beyond if the US had significantly more money to spend on strategic systems than they historically did. (ICBMs that could be launched from transport air craft while flying over the CONUS are another type of system that IMHO would have been useful to have if budgets were not an issue.)It still gets to the Soviet Border 3x faster from Guam than a B-52, 2x as fast as a B-1, though with a funded B-70, there won't be a B-1
Speed matters for WWIII.
No reason the Skybolt sized Bomb Bay(57) could be fitted with ALCMs, either
marathag
Banned
Pluto wasn't inherently Evil though. the Persian Ahriman, or Slavic Chernobog would have been better. The Russians could catch that reference
marathag
Banned
Easier to retarget Bombers.
And if you have B-70s doing ChromeDome or HeadStart missions, it's not hours into the USSR.
And for nothing left for Bombers, that's even more so for B-52s
In the 60s though, the primary means of deterrence for the United States was switching from the Air Force to the Navy with the introduction of Polaris missile system. And the "41 for Freedom" boats were killing the budget in order to get as many warheads to sea and effectively invulnerable as quickly as possible. Maybe if Polaris and Minuteman fail during development you could get the B-70 into service.
And Chrome Dome resulted in the loss of 5 B-52s, all armed with nuclear weapons. The mission would have ended regardless of what aircraft was flying because of that. By the time of the last crash in 1968, even the Air Force recognized that continous airborne alert was pretty pointless with the proliferation of ICBMs and SLBMs. So your argument would be over before it even began, as it's doubtful any B-70s would even be in service by 1968.
Yeah but IMHO bombers and ICBMs had some advantages at the time vis a vis actual nuclear war fighting vs simply hoping to deter the enemy. That being said given the available funds the decision to focus on the SLBM force made a lot of sense.
Well.. The presence of the B70 would likely have enhanced the usefulness of Chrome Dome type missions if the USA decided to restart them in a subsequent crisis. That being said I suspect if massive amounts of extra funds were available and the US wanted an enhanced airborne / air launched nuclear force in the 60's and 70's I suspect there might have been some debate about investing in air launched ICBM's vs a B70 style bomber force.
Im going to say the B-70 was a dead end overall.
Plus they raised tensions too much and were probably only made so Curtis Le May could think of them bombing Soviet cities in a dream instead of spending money elsewhere on more useful goals.
Plus they raised tensions too much and were probably only made so Curtis Le May could think of them bombing Soviet cities in a dream instead of spending money elsewhere on more useful goals.
Riain
Banned
Polaris and Poseidon, Atlas, Titan I & II, Minuteman I, II & III, B58 Hustler, B52 & Hound Dog, FB111 all made it into service in the timeframe that the XB-70 was being developed and planned to be deployed. The US nuclear forces never missed a beat with it's cancellation, nor the cancellation of Skybolt, because of the great depth of resources in the US during the 60s.
This is unlike the situation in the UK during the same period, where the cancellation of a number of key projects effectively ended Britain's career as a world power. The same thing is happening to the US in the last 20 or so years, although not nearly as bad and not crippling per se but the US does have an uncomfortable reliance on equipment that was developed in the 80s and even the 60s.
This is unlike the situation in the UK during the same period, where the cancellation of a number of key projects effectively ended Britain's career as a world power. The same thing is happening to the US in the last 20 or so years, although not nearly as bad and not crippling per se but the US does have an uncomfortable reliance on equipment that was developed in the 80s and even the 60s.
Depends on the size of the B-70 fleet. If it's in at least the low three digits, some imbecile is going to try to move some of the B-70 to conventional missions (especially if the B-52s get cut to save money for the B-70s and whatever else the USAF wants).
It's a tremendously stupid and wasteful idea, but when has that ever stopped Congress or senior staff and brass?
Riain
Banned
I don't think the B58 was adapted to conventional bombing despite the war in Vietnam. You'd think it would be a tough plane to stop in the context of NthV, and as a declining asset there's no garm in using them up. But it didn't happen, so I'd think the B70 wouldn't be used for conventional bombing either.
Well.. Assuming the desired conventional munitions were cleared for use at Supersonic Speed I can see some advantages to having large supersonic conventional bombers available. I suspect the cost effectiveness might be an issue which is probably why that concept never really caught on in our time line.
Well I recall reading that there was at first opposition from parts of the USAF to using the B52`s over North Vietnam, yet they ended up being used (both the older models and eventually some of the later G models.) I suspect that if the B70 had been available and could have been credibly used with conventional weapons that its use might at least have been considered over North Vietnam. Subsequent use over Libya might also have been possible.
Edit to add it also occurs to me that if the B58 did not already have a conventional capability (I don`t know if it did or did not) there may have been a reluctance to spend the money to give it the ability to use conventional weapons at that point in its life span.
Last edited:
The B-58 and B-70 would not have been able to carry useful bomb loads because of the small size of their weapons stowage areas. The B-58 could carry 4 weapons (M117 size, compared to 6 on the F-105) in the expendable external fuel tank, and the B-70 could carry one Skybolt missile internally.
The B-58 was set to go to SEA, but not as a bomber: the aircraft was going to act as a pathfinder for F-105s making night or bad weather strikes into NVN. Tech orders for the B-58's camo scheme in SEA were prepped, crews were training for deployment in mid '67, but they never deployed. It wasn't SAC that decided against it, it was Edsel Bob MacNamara, who feared B-58 avionics possibly falling into Soviet hands if a Hustler fell victim to an SA-2.
Before its teething troubles were fixed: two of the first six sent on COMBAT LANCER were lost. It wasn't until LINEBACKER I in 1972 that the F-111 made its mark in SEA.
groundhogday666
Banned
B-58 could have lifted Skybolts, and B-70 could have air-dropped Minuteman...