WI: B-70 Valkyrie Enters Service

[usertron2020]

Yeah a Mach 2.8 Interceptor is going to engage a Mach 3+ bomber. Soviet Air Defense products didn't work against the SR-71, multiple penetrations by B-70's is going to give their air defense network hysterics.

Yes, it will, in a WWIII nuclear environment where the nukes are going off. The Mig-25 is capable of going Mach 3.2 when totally fire-walled, though this will ultimately wreck the engine. The pilot can land in one piece, and in WWIII you aren't worried about engine replacement, just stopping the enemy. Since the enemy is coming at you head-on, a virtual dead-heat tie in speed means no serious advantage for either penetrating bomber or interceptor.

I suppose the threat of the B-70 did work in some way then. Nothing beats having a rival build a defense against something you don't even have.

Also, I've read that some autocratic states prize the MiG-25 and MiG-31 as symbols of military power. They usually can't operate them to their potential, but that doesn't mean they can't show them off.

Like friendly but autocratic governments wanting the F-16 over the more capable F-15 because of the Israeli's using the Fighting Falcon to knock out Saddam's nuclear reactor (and the F-16's cool appearance) made it a status symbol.

 

[usertron2020]

The Soviets would possibly pour more resources into more advanced versions of the MiG-25. Other than that... They won't build their own version. I think their lack of success in long range bombers was what prompted them to invest in missiles.

They lack the skill in metallurgy. That's why they lost the Race to the Moon on Day One, and only treason by a Norwegian company ever gave them the means for ultra-quiet nuclear submarines.

Dayton is the only city east of the Mississippi I want to visit, and that museum is exactly why.

They even have full scale mock-ups of those rarest of rarities, pre-war and early war military aircraft of planes that were quickly consumed in battle. Frex, the Brewster Buffalo

 

[brovane]

I don't think the SR-71 ever flew into the heart of the Soviet Union, just over the Kamchatka Peninsula.

No but regularly overflew North Vietnam and flew into Libya. Also Soviet MIG-25's regularly attempted intercepts of the SR-71 when it approached Soviet AirSpace.

 

[brovane]

Yes, it will, in a WWIII nuclear environment where the nukes are going off. The Mig-25 is capable of going Mach 3.2 when totally fire-walled, though this will ultimately wreck the engine. The pilot can land in one piece, and in WWIII you aren't worried about engine replacement, just stopping the enemy. Since the enemy is coming at you head-on, a virtual dead-heat tie in speed means no serious advantage for either penetrating bomber or interceptor.

The MIG-25 can do Mach 3.2 but with no missiles, basically clean. Doesn't do much good if you cannot carry AAM missiles if you are trying to intercept a bomber. Also the MIG-25 cannot sustain Mach 3+ plus the B-70 can sustain that speed.

 

[brovane]

I think the other question to ask what is more survivable in hostile air space the B-70 or B-1?

 

[MUC]

The B-1b is more survivable than the XB-70.

Is there any chance any of those XB-70s would have stayed in service past the end of the Cold War. Nowadays such aircraft could have been useful to attack targets of opportunity, when you only have a limited window of opportunity with PGMs. A faster B-52 in essense.

 

[Readman]

The B-1b is more survivable than the XB-70.

Is there any chance any of those XB-70s would have stayed in service past the end of the Cold War. Nowadays such aircraft could have been useful to attack targets of opportunity, when you only have a limited window of opportunity with PGMs. A faster B-52 in essense.

I doubt it. the BUFF is still going pretty strong even OTL. I suspect the Valkyrie would probably be outclassed by the 1980's at the latest.

 

[sharlin]

Could you convert the B-70 into a missile carrier like the B-52 has become? If I recall the B-70 was a gravity bomb equipped aircraft only.

 

[usertron2020]

Could you convert the B-70 into a missile carrier like the B-52 has become? If I recall the B-70 was a gravity bomb equipped aircraft only.

I doubt that you can ever get over the basic design flaw of the B-70 flying like a ruptured duck below 1500 feet. IDK about you, but I'D never want to be in that thing flying nape of the earth.

 

[Southpaw]

Well, that's a big pile of money flushed down the drain.

MACH-3 penetration bombers were a dead end. Only useful for one role, and its a role that you pray they will never fulfill.

Unlike boomers?

All nuclear delivery systems are a waste of money and a plague on humanity.

 

[Nicola]

I doubt that you can ever get over the basic design flaw of the B-70 flying like a ruptured duck below 1500 feet. IDK about you, but I'D never want to be in that thing flying nape of the earth.

which is where the interdictors ( F111, TSR 2 , Buccanner, Tonka IDS, ) come into their own , and the one successful strategic bomber turned interdictor the Avro Vulcan come in ...

 

[usertron2020]

Unlike boomers?

All nuclear delivery systems are a waste of money and a plague on humanity.

Um, boomers have the ability with the development of conventional stealth SLCMs of serving a tactical role, as well as for intelligence missions.

 

[Southpaw]

Um, boomers have the ability with the development of conventional stealth SLCMs of serving a tactical role, as well as for intelligence missions.

That's a small percentage of their capability, and, just as importantly, their cost.

 

[usertron2020]

That's a small percentage of their capability, and, just as importantly, their cost.

Not when you throw in the advantage of surprise against an enemy operating in a part of the world where we have no friends, no basing rights, and no over-flight rights.

 

[Southpaw]

Not when you throw in the advantage of surprise against an enemy operating in a part of the world where we have no friends, no basing rights, and no over-flight rights.

You don't need a multi-billion dollar submarine to launch cruise missiles.

 

[CalBear]

Unlike boomers?

All nuclear delivery systems are a waste of money and a plague on humanity.

Difference of course being that an Ohio class can actually perform its deterrent mission.

 

[brovane]

The B-1b is more survivable than the XB-70.

.

Yeah a subsonic bomber trying to sneak in below radar is more suvivable than a mach 3+ bomber coming in at 70,000 feet plus.

 

[brovane]

Unlike boomers?

All nuclear delivery systems are a waste of money and a plague on humanity.

 

[brovane]

Difference of course being that an Ohio class can actually perform its deterrent mission.

You are very mistaken. The B-70 can perform it's mission to penetrate Soviet Airspace.

 

[Aelita]

Yeah a subsonic bomber trying to sneak in below radar is more suvivable than a mach 3+ bomber coming in at 70,000 feet plus.

A Soviet SA-5b Gammon has an operational range of 300km, and a ceiling of over 40,000 meters. It can engage targets travelling at Mach 4, and the missile itself tops out at over Mach 7. And if the 217 kg blast fragmentation warhead isn't enough to get the job done, you can always go for a 25 kiloton warhead.

A target travelling at high altitude is an optimal target for missiles. A large bomber travelling at Mach 3 has no defense beyond its altitude and speed. If the missiles can fly higher and faster than it, it is going to lose the trade off.

I do not understand why the armchair generals still pine away for obselescent weapon systems and think that somehow a golden opportunity was missed. Both the Americans and Soviets developed weapons designed for the sole purpose of knocking out ICBM re-entry vehicles, which are far smaller targets travelling far faster than any bomber could hope to. A B-70 is a flying cow by comparison.