Mikey wrote:The B-17 wasn't armed in the same type or degree in its initial form as it was in later incarnations; that said, it was not designed as an anti-fighter aircraft that also happened to have a bomb bay, nor was the B-2 designed as an anti-radar aircraft that similarly had an accidental bomb bay.
And likewise, which I'd like to think you've got enough of a working brain to understand, the B-70 was not simply a missile dodger with a bomb bay as an afterthought.
The B-17 had a run as a service aircraft - including usage by both the USAAF and the USN in it's -W form - of all of four years.
Which, by your standards, makes it even more of a failure given how much you complain about rapid obsolescence.
And this from the thickhead who claims that invulnerability to near-future SAM's isn't important for an aircraft whose stated purpose is to be invulnerable to those SAM's.
"Invulnerability" was never a requirement, on the grounds that it's ridiculous to expect any weapons system to be invulnerable. What was intended was that it
be the hardest target it was possible to produce, and that it achieved. The fact that it was higher and faster than the aircraft that did prove to be effectively invulnerable to all extant, near future and not-so-near future SAMs simply shows how well they did the job.
I've already handily dismissed your usage of the Blackbird example as tangential at best
Tangential, of course, meaning that it rips your argument apart.
Further, I need no proof that the Russians "could have whipped up a B-70 killer in five seconds flat if they wanted to," because I never made such a claim - again
You've repeatedly claimed that there would be no point in the B-70 because a counter would be developed. Either you referred to a long-term programme to develop such a counter, which would obviously leave the B-70 unchallenged in the period prior to its introduction (i.e. what I've been suggesting), or you were talking about an extremely rapid development to render the B-70 obsolete from the start.
However, I likewise need no proof that the Dvina would have easily become a system effective past 90k feet - especially with development of the V-755 - had the B-70 become a reality... it's simple common sense, as evidence by the subsequent paradigm in all of military aircraft design after that point, a paradigm which was directly caused by the possibility of near-future SAM capability.
If it's so obvious then you should have any problem providing such proof, and that such a system would be effective against the B-70's successor, which would obviously be capable of 100k+ and Mach 5+.
Is that why HMS Warspite and her ilk were still your frontline cap ships in the World War after the one in which she achieved veteran status?
What are you talking about? Our frontline capital ships in WW2 were the Nelsons, Hood and, as they came into service, the KGVs.
That why you guys were using biplanes do drop torps in WWII?
They were state of the art at the time they came into service - the fact that they were able to keep soldiering on is more evidence of the skill of their pilots and the shit state of German warships than the quality of the Stringbag.
To what conversation does this apply? Nobody ever said anything different.
You claimed that the B-52 as "has yet served admirably in its role...since 1955". I was pointing out that it was removed from its designed role by the mid-60s due to being obsolete.
The logical course of action would have been to develop a more useful and generalized strategic bomber than the B-70, not to replace the Buff with something that couldn't replace it.
The requirement was to deliver nuclear ordnance to targets in the Soviet Union. Doing this required the delivery system not to be shot down. This requirement drove the performance characteristics of the B-70. QED.