www.ditl.org

Mikey wrote:

Captain Seafort wrote:t's niche was that it was too high and too fast to be intercepted by aircraft or missile - it would have fulfilled that role excellently, given that the Russians were never able to kill a Blackbird, despite them being lower and slower than the Valkyrie.

I'm not so sure that it was ever faster than an SR-71 or had a higher ceiling.

I've read speculations of the B-70 having a 90,000ft ceiling. I don't think we will ever get the truth about maximum speed. I know this is a poor comparison but the B-70 had six 85kN engines and the SR-71 had two 150kn engines. They are probably comparable.

In fact, one of the reasons it was cancelled was the advent of SAM's that were capable of intercepting the B-70.

That was the contention of Robert Strange McNamara, then Secretary of Defense, when he cancelled the program. He liked ICBMs, SLBMs, and Mutually Assured Destruction too.

IDK about thrust measures, but the SR-71 was much lighter. Also, the B-70 was spec'd to achieve Mach 3, while the Blackbird was designed to perform regularly at Mach 3+. And indeed, the advent of useful ICBM's was another factor rendering the B-70 redundant.

Deepcrush wrote:McAvoy, they're french... aka the trash of Europe. The problem they have to constantly live with is that they know it, so they try to pretend that everyone's attitude towards them is jelousy rather then pity or discust. Been in more then one ''phyiscal disagreement'' with our french allies for much the same issue.

Yep. There is no such thing as a French joke, but French truths.

On a side note, their Rafeals (their fighters and too lazy to look up the spelling), are fairly cool looking up close. Almost small enough to park one in a garage.

Well they have to be able to hid them in times of war, lest people question why they aren't fighting back.

Deepcrush wrote:Well they have to be able to hid them in times of war, lest people question why they aren't fighting back.

Mikey wrote:the advent of useful ICBM's was another factor rendering the B-70 redundant.

That's a bit of a chicken-and-the-egg question that assumes that ICBMs are inherently superior. There's a pretty strong argument that manned bombers (either high and fast or low and fast) are superior to ICBMs due to their greater flexibility and lack of reliance on external targeting aids (and thus vulnerability to decapitation strikes).

Mikey, bombers can be recalled among other things.

Captain Seafort, don't forget slow and stealthy.

Tholian_Avenger wrote:Captain Seafort, don't forget slow and stealthy.

An approach that didn't exist back in the 70s, and which still hasn't proven itself against a world-class air defence network the way the Blackbird did. Besides, there's no way the US would be able to reorientate towards bombers today, given that everything's been built around missiles for the last half century.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Mikey wrote:the advent of useful ICBM's was another factor rendering the B-70 redundant.

That's a bit of a chicken-and-the-egg question that assumes that ICBMs are inherently superior. There's a pretty strong argument that manned bombers (either high and fast or low and fast) are superior to ICBMs due to their greater flexibility and lack of reliance on external targeting aids (and thus vulnerability to decapitation strikes).

Tholian_Avenger wrote:Mikey, bombers can be recalled among other things.

Captain Seafort, don't forget slow and stealthy.

You're both right about the lack of absolute superiority of ICBM's over bombers. The fact that you're right is irrelevant - I didn't make the decision to shit-can the B-70. I was mentioning the thought processes that went into that decision, not the correctness of said processes.

Mikey wrote:You're both right about the lack of absolute superiority of ICBM's over bombers. The fact that you're right is irrelevant - I didn't make the decision to shit-can the B-70. I was mentioning the thought processes that went into that decision, not the correctness of said processes.

This whole line of discussion started when you commented that "the B-70 needed to be cancelled. It was incapable of fulfilling its niche before it was even in production". What I and T_A have been pointing out is that that statement is an outright lie perpetrated by McNamara.

I mentioned that independent of the ICBM relation. I added that based on T_A's claim that such was one of McNamara's assertions at the time. McNamara was correct in the assertion with which I agreed - that is, the B-70's intended invulnerability to SAM's was rendered obsolete soon after it's R&D. Sorry, I thought that distinction was clearer based on the progression of the discussion.

Mikey wrote:I mentioned that independent of the ICBM relation. I added that based on T_A's claim that such was one of McNamara's assertions at the time. McNamara was correct in the assertion with which I agreed - that is, the B-70's intended invulnerability to SAM's was rendered obsolete soon after it's R&D. Sorry, I thought that distinction was clearer based on the progression of the discussion.

Fair enough. We then go back to the inherent superiority of manned bombers over ICBMs - the former have very predictable approach paths and trajectories, and are dependent on fixed, vulnerable, C2 centres. Bombers have none of these weaknesses.

No argument here, although strategic bombers are likewise limited to fixed installations. In the same vein, ICBM's have certain advantages over bombers as well. The main case for bombers is, IMHO, one of flexibility. As we've seen time and again, a Buff (to use an example) could carry the nuke payload for which it was designed... OR drop daisycutters, OR perform linebacker raids, OR be a platform for air-based missile defense (theoretically as yet, anyway,) OR...

An ICBM, OTOH, can't be anything but an ICBM.

Mikey wrote:No argument here

So why the assertion that the B-70 was obsolete?

strategic bombers are likewise limited to fixed installations.

To a far more limited degree though - five minutes from warning and they're in the air (or at least SAC could be during the Cold War). Moreover, bombers holding at failsafe would lack even that vulnerability.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Mikey wrote:No argument here

So why the assertion that the B-70 was obsolete?

WTF? That was said in response to a specific comment - that ICBM's aren't absolutely superior to strategic bombers. Put it together and it says that "I have no argument with your assertion that ICBM's aren't superior to strategic bombers by all available criteria." That's never been at issue. As to why I had said that the B-70's cancellation was correct, I've already explained to you that the prior reason - the advent of SAM's to which the B-70 was vulnerable, when it's whole raison d'etre was to be SAM-proof - was a valid one. In fact, you read that explanation and replied, "Fair enough."

strategic bombers are likewise limited to fixed installations.

To a far more limited degree though - five minutes from warning and they're in the air (or at least SAC could be during the Cold War). Moreover, bombers holding at failsafe would lack even that vulnerability.[/quote]

Fair enough.