XB-70 Valkyrie

Experimental aircraft including -but not limited to- X-planes, from the Bell X-1 to the Su-47
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

TC

F-16.net Moderator

F-16.net Moderator

  • Posts: 3998
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2004, 07:06

Unread post08 Nov 2008, 22:48

sferrin wrote:How so? Did it render ICBMs useless?


We didn't utilize any ICBMs in Vietnam, though. We did, however, utilize more than one aircraft, which had originally been designed to be nuke-capable in a conventional role. The Thud and the BUFF are prime examples.

sferrin wrote:We'd have still had the B-52s around to drop conventional bombs (don't know how accurate they could be dropped dumb from mach 3 and 80,000 feet though).


Exactly my point. Vietnam was entirely the wrong type of war for the B-70. Conventional munitions dropped at Mach 3 from 80K is a non-option.

On the flip side of the coin, slowing down, and descending to salvo drop GP munitions, ala, the BUFF, would have been suicide for a Valkyrie crew. No way that it could've done that type job, and survived the SAMs and/or AAA.

Also, as I said before, had we bought enough B-70s to equip a couple of Bomb Wings, politicians in Washington would have been in an uproar over the expense of the bombers, coupled with their non-use in Vietnam.

Another example of this, is the B-58. It never fired a shot in anger, and it too did not make it past the Vietnam era, being retired in January of 1970.
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2322
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post09 Nov 2008, 01:55

Gums wrote:Salute!

Habu KNOWS about the Oxcart. So does Parrot-breath.

TEG (that engine guy) REALLY KNOWS!!!!!


Thanks Gums :cheers:

Just the motor stuff... Yes the J58 could "cruise" at MACH3 all day long given the proper amount of fuel.

If you've ever seen "Blackbird the Movie" made by LM back in the late 80's early 90's just before the program was dropped; you'll notice the pilot retard the throttles when reaching MACH 3 on the meter.

Yes I said RETARD the throttles when reaching MACH 3.

I wouldn't want to violate that "99 year disclosure clause" but I can say the Blackbird (J58) was capable of the "plus" speeds it is often quoted to have.

Besides, J58s look very beautiful with their gold-plated tubing and such.

Point here, to go fast costs big $$, and today it's not about fast, it's about cheap.

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:
TEG
Offline

johnwill

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2150
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post09 Nov 2008, 03:44

There may be others on display elsewhere, but I visited the Evergreen Aviation Museum at McMinnville, OR last month and enjoyed seeing the J-58 on display. A beautiful piece of machinery.
Offline

TC

F-16.net Moderator

F-16.net Moderator

  • Posts: 3998
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2004, 07:06

Unread post09 Nov 2008, 04:52

That_Engine_Guy wrote:Yes I said RETARD the throttles when reaching MACH 3.


:lol: Uh...he said RETARD Beavis. :lol:

That_Engine_Guy wrote:I wouldn't want to violate that "99 year disclosure clause" but I can say the Blackbird (J58) was capable of the "plus" speeds it is often quoted to have.


Forgive me if I plead ignorance TEG, but I honestly didn't know that you had been a J58 troop. Cool stuff!

Yeah, the best story I had ever heard about the "plus" in Mach 3+ was from Brian Shul, when he was talking about making feet wet from the coast of Libya, following OEDC. He said, "The Mach meter was reading off numbers we had never seen before!" :shock:
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5600
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post09 Nov 2008, 16:49

TC wrote:
sferrin wrote:How so? Did it render ICBMs useless?


We didn't utilize any ICBMs in Vietnam, though. We did, however, utilize more than one aircraft, which had originally been designed to be nuke-capable in a conventional role. The Thud and the BUFF are prime examples.


Exactly. We wouldn't have HAD to use the B-70s in Vietnam. Just like we didn't use B-58s or F-106s.




TC wrote:Another example of this, is the B-58. It never fired a shot in anger, and it too did not make it past the Vietnam era, being retired in January of 1970.



That had more to do with it's relatively low bang for the buck. The B-70 would have been much more capable.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5600
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post09 Nov 2008, 16:52

That_Engine_Guy wrote:
Gums wrote:Salute!

Habu KNOWS about the Oxcart. So does Parrot-breath.

TEG (that engine guy) REALLY KNOWS!!!!!


Thanks Gums :cheers:

Just the motor stuff... Yes the J58 could "cruise" at MACH3 all day long given the proper amount of fuel.

If you've ever seen "Blackbird the Movie" made by LM back in the late 80's early 90's just before the program was dropped; you'll notice the pilot retard the throttles when reaching MACH 3 on the meter.

Yes I said RETARD the throttles when reaching MACH 3.

I wouldn't want to violate that "99 year disclosure clause" but I can say the Blackbird (J58) was capable of the "plus" speeds it is often quoted to have.

Besides, J58s look very beautiful with their gold-plated tubing and such.

Point here, to go fast costs big $$, and today it's not about fast, it's about cheap.

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:
TEG


The original A-12 configuration would have went Mach 3.8 with them. :shock: (Not the A-12 as produced, although it did reach Mach 3.6 in tests according to some sources.)
"There I was. . ."
Offline

TC

F-16.net Moderator

F-16.net Moderator

  • Posts: 3998
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2004, 07:06

Unread post09 Nov 2008, 23:11

sferrin wrote:The B-70 would have been much more capable.


I assume you mean more capable in its intended mission. The Valkyrie would've been perfect for laying in a nuke on the Kremlin, but not for bombing "suspected truck parks" on the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
Offline

parrothead

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3279
  • Joined: 10 May 2004, 23:04

Unread post10 Nov 2008, 03:07

Call me crazy (you wouldn't be the first one), but wouldn't a bomber version of the Blackbird be pretty cool with nukes? I mean, what's going to kill it?
No plane on Sunday, maybe be one come Monday...
www.parrotheadjeff.com
Offline

TC

F-16.net Moderator

F-16.net Moderator

  • Posts: 3998
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2004, 07:06

Unread post10 Nov 2008, 03:17

parrothead wrote:I mean, what's going to kill it?


Congress. They only people in the world who can claim Blackbird kills.

Oh, wait! You meant what sort of threats would it have faced? :lol:
Offline

Habu

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2738
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2003, 05:12

Unread post10 Nov 2008, 06:38

Gums wrote:Salute!

Habu KNOWS about the Oxcart. So does Parrot-breath.

TEG (that engine guy) REALLY KNOWS!!!!!

We've gone thru this before and even posted the tech manuals and diagrams for the J-58. It had bypass ducts because it didn't need or could not use all that air at high mach numbers.

The neatest thing about the B-70 was the "shock rider" concept. I truly believe it would have done just fine in production, but requirements changed and we had a new administration and ........

Gums sends ...


Haha! Thanks Gums! I do remember those old threads. Good times...good times...
Do your homework, Tiger!
Offline

Habu

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2738
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2003, 05:12

Unread post10 Nov 2008, 06:39

parrothead wrote:Call me crazy (you wouldn't be the first one), but wouldn't a bomber version of the Blackbird be pretty cool with nukes? I mean, what's going to kill it?


There was one proposed! But the XB-70 project was in the works at the time.
Do your homework, Tiger!
Offline

Guysmiley

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1496
  • Joined: 26 May 2005, 19:39

Unread post10 Nov 2008, 06:50

I seem to recall that the SR-71/A-12 was limited by maximum compressor inlet temperature.
Offline

Habu

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2738
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2003, 05:12

Unread post10 Nov 2008, 06:55

Guysmiley wrote:I seem to recall that the SR-71/A-12 was limited by maximum compressor inlet temperature.

Limited as to what? If you meant top speed, then yes. 427 max CIT. After that , the J58 would have started destroying itself.
Do your homework, Tiger!
Offline

Guysmiley

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1496
  • Joined: 26 May 2005, 19:39

Unread post10 Nov 2008, 16:11

Habu wrote:
Guysmiley wrote:I seem to recall that the SR-71/A-12 was limited by maximum compressor inlet temperature.

Limited as to what? If you meant top speed, then yes. 427 max CIT. After that , the J58 would have started destroying itself.


Right, as in there wasn't a speedo in the cockpit saying "oops you're going too fast now", the limit was max CIT.
Offline

TC

F-16.net Moderator

F-16.net Moderator

  • Posts: 3998
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2004, 07:06

Unread post07 Dec 2008, 02:28

Here's another thread where I had found some overlap. They actually merged virtually seamlessly. Not bad for originally being three different topics posted over a 4 year span!

I merged all three topics, in order for this to hopefully become this site's definitive XB-70 page. I hope all Valkyrie fans enjoy it.
PreviousNext

Return to X-planes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests