XB70 Valkyrie commercial
Posted by Unlucky-Debt5467@reddit | WeirdWings | View on Reddit | 24 comments
It would've made a great SST
Posted by Unlucky-Debt5467@reddit | WeirdWings | View on Reddit | 24 comments
It would've made a great SST
AmericanFlyer530@reddit
It wouldn’t have lmao.
Extremely specialized fuel, extremely high maintenance, absurdly large footprint, low passenger capacity.
If the US military in the 1960s is going “we cannot afford nor maintain this” with their bottomless budget, what hope do airlines have?
Old_Wallaby_7461@reddit
The USAF could afford it, the problem with XB-70 as a bomber is that it was rendered obsolete by SAMs
Aditya1311@reddit
Also ICBMs
recumbent_mike@reddit
And ICBSAMs
quietflyr@reddit
Manned nuclear bombers are still part of the nuclear triad. ICBMs never made them obsolete.
ArgumentFree9318@reddit
Today, yes, because they evolved to do other duties, which involve guided weapons and cruise missiles. At the time, which just free fall weapons pretty much requiring overflight of the target? Soviet SAMs would kill it. The B-52 itself was pretty much saved first by the Vietnam war and latter by the appearance of the cruise missile.
quietflyr@reddit
The SAM threat forced the USAF to switch to a low-level penetration tactic rather than high-altitude. They were still using free fall bombs, it just turned out that the XB-70 would barely be any faster or survivable than the B-52 at low altitude while carrying less bomb load at shorter range, so there was no point to the XB-70.
The B-52 was initially saved by the fact that it was "good enough" at low altitude, and was versatile enough to carry many different payloads.
The B-1A was to do the same thing as the B-52, but also have a high-altitude high-speed capability. But discovering that the USSR had developed look-down shoot-down radar in the 70s meant, again, the B-1A wasn't going to be any more effective than the B-52, but would be far more expensive.
It wasn't until the early 80s that long range air-launched cruise missiles (1000 nm+) really became effective and no longer required the bomber to penetrate enemy airspace. Again, the B-52 could carry these and be effective, so it survived.
The B-1B was developed to be a stopgap to the B-2, which focused more heavily on RCS reduction to make it more survivable against AWACS and MiG-31s.
And then of course the B-2 is there for high-altitude penetration missions using either cruise missiles or freefall bombs.
So all that to say, the US maintained the manned bomber leg of the nuclear triad even though ICBMs became more plentiful and accurate. The big problem is, ICBMs (at least in the US implementation) can't move in order to avoid attack. They also can't be recalled once launched, hence the need for the bomber leg. SLBMs overlap bombers in some ways, but subs can be tracked and followed long-term. Bombers are more difficult to track and attack once they're on airborne alert, before they start approaching their targets.
Old_Wallaby_7461@reddit
B-2 can also do low altitude penetration, that's why it has that batwing shape to it instead of the much simpler planform of the B-21, which isn't designed for low altitude penetration. Cost a few extra billion in development costs and delayed the bomber by 2 years
The USAF ran into the "bombers have no mission" problem. They found one in the relocatable strategic target mission- B-2 was designed to fly into the USSR and find and destroy Soviet mobile ICBM launchers
belligerentbunno@reddit
Precisely.
The concordes coup de grace wasnt simply it's headline mach2 speed, it was that it operated from normal airports with normal runways being for all of its capabilities just another piece of apparatus on the apron.
PiDicus_Rex@reddit
That's hilarious.
Concorde was only 15ft longer, and took most of it's length to seat only 120 people,... And here the "cabin" is less than half the length of the shorter airframe.
edson2000@reddit
London to New York in 2½ hours at mach 3
cat_prophecy@reddit
Anything living along the flight path: good luck.
ceejayoz@reddit
I have an idea…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
anselan2017@reddit
Wow. That's.... Great.
Unlucky-Debt5467@reddit (OP)
Concorde is crying in French and English right now
joe9teas@reddit
Concorde existed and took passengers across the Atlantic, unlike this. So, laughing or crying it could indeed do both.
404-skill_not_found@reddit
If you have the gas!
Striking_Reindeer_2k@reddit
Back when engineers just kept designing faster. Because they didn't see a reason not to.
matt32578@reddit
Those aren't actual windows that you see on the plane. It is actually just stickers.
pesca_22@reddit
now, even considering that the xb-70 was a fucking big plane arent those window a bit too small and thigthly packed?
PlanesOfFame@reddit
Funny enough, they couldve scaled this down and had a niche.
Take 3 engines out, reduce the size, keep the fuselage the same length. It doesnt go as fast but it doesnt need to go mach 3. It doesnt go as high but it doesnt need to go 70k ft. Can't carry bombs but it doesnt need to. Now you have a super high speed regional jet sized plane. Sure those people would be crammed in there but the Concorde was basically the size of a large regional jet.
I truly think the billionaires of today would have purchased mini Concorde and mini xb-70 if they were on the market over a Gulfstream or Falcon. Twice as fast and twice as expensive sounds like a good flex, and im sure theyd love to make their presence known to us poors with gigantic sonic booms across the world
joe9teas@reddit
32 passengers max?
AnIndustrialEngineer@reddit
Stacked like cordwood in the bomb bays
joe9teas@reddit
Aye, blindfolded and sipping complimentary G&T through 50ft horizontal straws