What if the Northrop B-49 entered operational service.

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Be a big 'ol pile of melted aluminum clustered around every USAF base. The Flying Wing, as a concept is brilliant, as a practical design it was impossible before the introduction of fly-by-wire and computerized monitoring/adjustment of the control surfaces.
 
Makes the R.A.F's Lincolns look a trifle outdated, though they were the same vintage.

No looks about it, the Lincolns were outdated compared to the B-29, let alone the B-36 or B-49. Although considering the Lincoln design at it's core dated back to the late 1930's, and the B-36 and -49 to the early 1940's, there is a generation of development between them, along with a healthy dose of British design conservatism ("Nosewheels? Pressurisation? A Jedi craves not these things!" etc).
 
The B-49 IIRC was an absolute horror to fly and flying wings only really became viable with fly by wire and much more advanced tech.

According to Yeager's autobiography (so it may even be true), one of the YB-49 test pilots hated the thing so much he tried to stop fire crews from putting out the fires after crash landing one.
 

thorr97

Banned
Not to hijack the thread, but what was expected survivability of the B-36? Seems like it would be easy pickings for Soviet fighters. Especially when they stripped off the defensive guns.

Ric350

Those early jets saw massive performance drop offs as they got to high altitude. Yes, the high altitudes also affected the B-36 but it had so much horsepower and so much wing are and so much control surface area that it was far less degraded in its operations up there at height. Thus B-36s were only marginally slower than the jet fighters that managed to claw their way up to try and intercept them. The B-36s could also out turn the jet fighters at that altitude. That's a pretty amazing thing when thing of such a massive lumbering bit of heavy bomber turning inside some "hot shot" jet fighter.

And thanks to that marginal speed differential and superior maneuverability, a slight course change by the B-36 could mean that an attacking fighter might not even be able to successfully close on the B-36 to begin with. That is, the fighter sets up to make its gun run on the B-36 and the Convair machine executes a "quick" turn or skid or pull up and the attacker can't match it in time. The attacking jet then meanders on past the B-36 and by the time it's managed to turn itself around the '36 is now too far away for it to both catch up, set back up for another attack run, and have enough fuel left for the fighter to managed to get back to base. Oh, and chasing after a '36 in those early jets would also mean a tail chase and that puts the fighter solidly in the tail gun's firing arc which would've been just fine as far as the B-36's lone remaining gunner was concerned.

Now, as world's jet engine technology improved all this changed. Suddenly the B-36 stopped being almost untouchable and the interceptors began having all the required speed and maneuverability advantages required to take on the B-36. That's when SAC switched them over to recon machines to take advantage of the B-36's utterly awesome endurance capability. Still though, from then on the clock was ticking down on the days the Magnesium Overcast could remain a viable part of SAC's arsenal.
 
No looks about it, the Lincolns were outdated compared to the B-29, let alone the B-36 or B-49. Although considering the Lincoln design at it's core dated back to the late 1930's, and the B-36 and -49 to the early 1940's, there is a generation of development between them, along with a healthy dose of British design conservatism ("Nosewheels? Pressurisation? A Jedi craves not these things!" etc).
A basic design that remained in service into the 90's when 8 Squadron's last Shackleton's were retired. As the saying goes, If it ain't broke don't fix it.
 
According to Wiki, the Navy’s F2h Banshee could intercept the B36 but were forbidden from demonstrating it by the Secretary of Defence. It also brings to mind how the Germans thought the Ju-86P flew too high for intercept, but the British proved otherwise.

Ric350


In SAC/ADC flyoffs, the early Jets had trouble getting a firing solution. At high altitudes, stall speed increases, most famously in the form of the U-2, where top speed and stalling speed were a few knots apart.

B-36 had enough lift and stability(from the props and generous tail), it could out-maneuver the interceptors at high altitudes

One of the reason why ADC gave up on guns, and went unguided FFARs and IR and Radar Falcons
d0f3549495ded06364b599855a6daf39e05b8c1.jpg

Wanted to be sure of getting that Soviet Bomber,
along with the ultimate unjammable rocket, the AIR-2 Genie
1024px-Convair_F-106A_Delta_Dart_1-600x401.jpg

1.5kt of solid rocket fun. No guidance, just the predicting gunsight
 
According to Wiki, the Navy’s F2h Banshee could intercept the B36 but were forbidden from demonstrating it by the Secretary of Defence. It also brings to mind how the Germans thought the Ju-86P flew too high for intercept, but the British proved otherwise.
Given the USAF/USN poisonous relationship at the time, they would claim that.
Banshees didn't have the performance advantage over what ADC was flying in what Yeager called 'Coffin Corner' to be any different.

Getting to the altitude and calling it an intercept is different from getting a firing solution at that altitude
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Not to hijack the thread, but what was expected survivability of the B-36? Seems like it would be easy pickings for Soviet fighters. Especially when they stripped off the defensive guns.

Ric350
The B-36, especially the later (and hilariously misnamed) "Featherweight" configurations, was able to fly at close to or ABOVE 50,000 feet. At that altitude the aircraft became the manmade version of the "Gooney Bird" ungainly, even clumsy, on the ground or at low altitude but a marvel of maneuverablity at height. There are several documented cases of B-36 and RB-36 Featherweights literally flying circles around jet fighters during exercises (this was a function of the wing area of the Peacemaker compared to fighters of the era). Down below 35K the B-36 was meat on the table, three miles higher it was untouchable if properly handled before the advent of SAM and practical IR AAM.

On the nuclear mission the bomber also sort of became expendable after it dropped two H-bombs. Depending on who was doing the math the expectation was a loss rate of between 33% and 75%. Of course by then the USSR would have been a smoking set of craters.

According to Wiki, the Navy’s F2h Banshee could intercept the B36 but were forbidden from demonstrating it by the Secretary of Defence. It also brings to mind how the Germans thought the Ju-86P flew too high for intercept, but the British proved otherwise.

Ric350
That was based on a statement by a USN admiral during an appearance before Congress where the fleet was pushing for funding for the USS United States. He offered to launch fighters from a carrier and SHOOT DOWN a B-36 at altitude (at the time 40K was the max). It was, as might be surmised, a rather contentious hearing.

The problem with the Admiral's argument is the the difference between "on paper" performance and real world performance. Possibly the classic example of this is the Lockheed U-2. On paper any number of fighter aircraft should be able to intercept the U-2. In actual operations the ONLY successful intercept of an U-2 was made by a English Electric Lightening in 1984 (long after the U-2 had been withdrawn from front line service due the SAM threat). Mig-25s, F-104s, F-106s, F-4s, F-15s, Mirages, you name it took a shot at the title, mostly for bragging rights, they ALL failed.
 
Last edited:
Detecting, tracking, and killing a nuke with a Shackleton...good luck. A long patrol in a Shackleton would be considered cruel and unusual punishment by many - "shaky shack" was an apt nickname. IMHO the name was an insult to that great explorer...
 
Happened on this thread this morning. Many excellent posts, tho some confusion between combat radius and maximum range for the contending strategic bombers. "Combat radius" at the time we're discussing involved carrying a 10,000 pound payload out to the maximum distance from which the aircraft, now having dropped its payload, is capable of returning to its base of origin. For the mature B-36, this was 5150 miles, though the payload now somewhat heavier than the original standard fission weapon, reduced this figure.

The radius figure quoted for the XB-36 of 3800 miles with 10,000 pound payload (carried half way) was demonstrated a number of times on a popular SAC practice mission for operational '36s between Dallas, Texas and Honolulu, Hawaii.

Yes, pusher propellers have a stabilizing effect due to their lateral area ( imagine a relatively narrow ring airfoil of similar diameter centered around the prop shaft). Loss of this stabilizing effect (while compensated for laterally in the XB-49 series by the four large vertical surfaces) resulted in some reduction in pitch stability and stall recovery authority.

The XB-35 was an airplane that would have fitted beautifully into the familiar AH time line of an isolated USA dropping lots of non-nuclear bombs on an enemy Europe. Its instability in yaw could have been adequately damped with any one of several contemporary electromechanical or pneumatic autopilot approaches, even easier with a central vertical stabilizer. Its low wing loading over target, combined with US lead in turbosupercharger application would have presented a problem in high altitude interception.

The YRB-49A, which reduced the number of wing submerged jet engines, utilized the now available wing volume for fuel tankage, and hung a few engines in nacelles below the wing (numbers of transposed engines varied), would have been an excellent long range, high altitude, scouting platform, with room for really long focal length cameras.

Dynasoar
 
The B-36, especially the later (and hilariously misnamed) "Featherweight" configurations, was able to fly at close to or ABOVE 50,000 feet. At that altitude the aircraft became the manmade version of the "Gooney Bird" ungainly, even clumsy, on the ground or at low altitude but a marvel of maneuverablity at height. There are several documented cases of B-36 and RB-36 Featherweights literally flying circles around jet fighters during exercises (this was a function of the wing area of the Peacemaker compared to fighters of the era). Down below 35K the B-36 was meat on the table, three miles higher it was untouchable if properly handled before the advent of SAM and practical IR AAM.

On the nuclear mission the bomber also sort of became expendable after it dropped two H-bombs. Depending on who was doing the math the expectation was a loss rate of between 33% and 75%. Of course by then the USSR would have been a smoking set of craters.


That was based on a statement by a USN admiral during an appearance before Congress where the fleet was pushing for funding for the USS United States. He offered to launch fighters from a carrier and SHOOT DOWN a B-36 at altitude (at the time 40K was the max). It was, as might be surmised, a rather contentious hearing.

The problem with the Admiral's argument is the the difference between "on paper" performance and real world performance. Possibly the classic example of this is the Lockheed U-2. On paper any number of fighter aircraft should be able to intercept the U-2. In actual operations the ONLY successful intercept of an U-2 was made by a English Electric Lightening in 1984 (long after the U-2 had been withdrawn from front line service due the SAM threat). Mig-25s, F-104s, F-106s, F-4s, F-15s, Mirages, you name it took a shot at the title, mostly for bragging rights, they ALL failed.


Understood, but I found it interesting that neither LeMay or Johnson called the Navies bluff. Seemed like something LeMay would do just to stick it to the Navy.
Plus you’d have to wonder what lengths Stalin would go to prevent nuclear bombers overflying Russia - “Don’t worry comrade, it has been thoroughly tested”, (pilot looks worryingly at a Mig15 with a V2 strapped under each wing). :)

Ric350
 
Assuming a MiG-17 is on patrol at 30K ft, and its vectored to a B-36 at 50K. How long does it have to get to altitude make one attack run and get back to base? The point of this is by routing bombers properly you can maximize the distance between known airbases on your flight path, thereby minimizing the time you are potentially at risk. Of course when you have enemy bombers attacking your country with nukes, concerns about returning to base are minimized, and suicide ramming is certainly a possibility.

In the 1950s some of the leading bombers would be tasked with attacks on various parts of the air defense system, making life easier for the following aircraft.
 
and suicide ramming is certainly a possibility.

F-102 Pilot I knew, said there was talk of using the wingtips to clip Bears cockpit area, or close enough with full burner on to pop the glass, if missiles were all expended and bogeys remained with no other ADC, RCAF or ANG assets flying near during the Cuban Missile Crisis
 
F-102 Pilot I knew, said there was talk of using the wingtips to clip Bears cockpit area, or close enough with full burner on to pop the glass, if missiles were all expended and bogeys remained with no other ADC, RCAF or ANG assets flying near during the Cuban Missile Crisis

No doubt. If you knew a millions lives depended on your immediate actions. I would think ramming attacks would certainly be carried out under those circumstances.
 
Through the late 1950s and early 1960s a lot of the Navy pilots/crews with SIOP missions had mission profiles where they would not have enough fuel to exit the USSR/WP boundaries. Their "plan" was to get as close to a friendly/neutral border as possible and eject and hopefully be able to walk out. Needless to say, this plan had a lot of faults - ejecting without major injury, hopefully not being downwind of a lot of fallout, avoiding locals and military who might be "upset", over and above the usual survival stuff. Heard rumors of bomber crews who had decided if it came to it and they were having airburst that they'd arm the bomb and descend to the appropriate altitude over the target - nothing and nobody to come home to.

After missiles basically took over the bulk of the strategic mission, "one-way" flight profiles went away, of course there were (and are) manned strategic missions in current SIOP.
 
A basic design that remained in service into the 90's when 8 Squadron's last Shackleton's were retired. As the saying goes, If it ain't broke don't fix it.

"If it ain't broke don't fix it."

See also "we have nothing to replace it with" :)

The Shackleton AEW.2, a 1940's airframe matched with a 1940's radar repurposed from a retired aircraft, as an "interim solution" that remained in service for 19 years until 1991, when the British government did what it should have done in the first place and acquired E-3's (and thus avoiding the Nimrod AEW.3 debacle).

I like the Shackleton, but for it still to be operational in 1991 was stretching things a bit :)
 
Last edited:
Top