Heavy Metal

[amazinblue82]

XB-70

Yup, one of the coolest NEVER produced (not put into service) . Fastest bomber (Mach 3+) ever built.

Designed/built in the age of slide rules and drafting paper. Remarkable machine, victim of surface-to-air technology.

source: North American XB-70 Valkyrie - Wikipedia

 

[Snotty]

The XB-70, cancelled by Francis Gary Powers.

 

[Slap Stick]

The XB-70, cancelled by Francis Gary Powers.

Powers was shot down in 1960. The XB-70 flew well into the late 60s. It's first flight was in 1964.

 

[Snotty]

Powers was shot down in 1960. The XB-70 flew well into the late 60s. It's first flight was in 1964.

In understand that. However, the project was started before he was shot down, and having been so at 70,000 feet, the USAF rethought it's need for a high-altitude, supersonic bomber. That event did more to cancel the XB-70 than anything else, even with the crash.

 

[amazinblue82]

My $0.02

Can one draw a straight line from the Powers' U2 incident TO the Valkyrie cancellation? Dunno, wasnt there when the "military industrial complex" debated its fate IN context of the day, considering existing and new ways to drop nukes/spy on any enemy.

And rockets, satellites, etc.. were all the rage post WWII as 50's became the 60's.

However, what I have been able to read, based on people (technical journalists, sources with credibility, etc) who studied the sutuation would indicate YES, a U2 getting downed by a USSR missile SURELY negatively affected viability decisions about a Mach 3 aircrafts' place in the US arsenal.

A few sources out of dozens I found interesting on the topic.

1. USAF National Museum
2. Popular Mechanics

Excerpts from both sources:

• "The Air Force’s XB-70 Valkyrie bomber was the fastest bomber ever developed.
• The aircraft ran into development difficulties, powerful Soviet air defenses and sky-high costs, eventually forcing its cancelation.
• The Air Force and North American Aviation, hoping to spur wider interest, came up with a variety of alternate uses for the XB-70, some of which were of questionable practicality.

In the early 1960s, the U.S. Air Force developed the XB-70, the largest, fastest bomber ever built. The ambitious airplane was eventually shot down not by enemy missiles, but advances in enemy air defenses and sky-high costs.

The XB-70 was also considered expensive, with each production bomber projected to cost an estimated $24.5 million, or $237 million today. The final production cost was significantly higher and likely sealed the Space Age bomber's fate.

The XB-70 was canceled twice: once in 1959 by the Eisenhower administration and again in 1961 by the Kennedy administration. In the meantime, Air Force and North American engineers struggled to figure out ways to somehow keep the plane alive in an alternate role.

A revolutionary plane with a fully pressurized cabin, plenty of interior room, and the ability to cruise at Mach 3 ought to be good for something ... right?"

The futuristic XB-70A was originally conceived in the 1950s as a high-altitude, nuclear strike bomber that could fly at Mach 3 (three times the speed of sound) -- any potential enemy would have been unable to defend against such a bomber.

By the early 1960s, however, new Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAMs) threatened the survivability of high-speed, high-altitude bombers. Less costly, nuclear-armed ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles) were also entering service.

As a result, in 1961, the expensive B-70 bomber program was canceled before any Valkyries had been completed or flown.

---

Is this the FULL story? I doubt it, BUT imagining myself in a decision-maker group in an analogous situations in a business setting:

Your competition defeated your best asset (a U2), with a technology that YOU also have in development (SAM's & unmanned ICBM's), and the thing you are working on (XB-70) could be obsolete by your own standards before you finished it, its expensive (quarter billion $$ EACH in 2020 dollars) as hell, ANDthe powers that be already tried to kill it TWICE!

Oh, you're also trying to put a man on the moon too.... That kinda project, the Valkyrie, does NOT survive the economics AND the politics of the day.

---

---

ASIDE

I learned something new looking at the Valkyrie.

The XF-108_Rapier, a Mach 3 Interceptor, concieved early 1950's, canceled 1959, not ONE made. Looks oddly modern though even by today's standards. Cool looking plane.

source: Designed to be Fast and Deadly, the XF-108 Rapier was shot down before it got off the ground

 

[3175375]

My $0.02

Can one draw a straight line from the Powers' U2 incident TO the Valkyrie cancellation? Dunno, wasnt there when the "military industrial complex" debated its fate IN context of the day, considering existing and new ways to drop nukes/spy on any enemy.

And rockets, satellites, etc.. were all the rage post WWII as 50's became the 60's.

However, what I have been able to read, based on people (technical journalists, sources with credibility, etc) who studied the sutuation would indicate YES, a U2 getting downed by a USSR missile SURELY negatively affected viability decisions about a Mach 3 aircrafts' place in the US arsenal.

View attachment 602661

A few sources out of dozens I found interesting on the topic.

1. USAF National Museum
2. Popular Mechanics

Excerpts from both sources:

• "The Air Force’s XB-70 Valkyrie bomber was the fastest bomber ever developed.
• The aircraft ran into development difficulties, powerful Soviet air defenses and sky-high costs, eventually forcing its cancelation.
• The Air Force and North American Aviation, hoping to spur wider interest, came up with a variety of alternate uses for the XB-70, some of which were of questionable practicality.

In the early 1960s, the U.S. Air Force developed the XB-70, the largest, fastest bomber ever built. The ambitious airplane was eventually shot down not by enemy missiles, but advances in enemy air defenses and sky-high costs.

The XB-70 was also considered expensive, with each production bomber projected to cost an estimated $24.5 million, or $237 million today. The final production cost was significantly higher and likely sealed the Space Age bomber's fate.

The XB-70 was canceled twice: once in 1959 by the Eisenhower administration and again in 1961 by the Kennedy administration. In the meantime, Air Force and North American engineers struggled to figure out ways to somehow keep the plane alive in an alternate role.

A revolutionary plane with a fully pressurized cabin, plenty of interior room, and the ability to cruise at Mach 3 ought to be good for something ... right?"

The futuristic XB-70A was originally conceived in the 1950s as a high-altitude, nuclear strike bomber that could fly at Mach 3 (three times the speed of sound) -- any potential enemy would have been unable to defend against such a bomber.

By the early 1960s, however, new Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAMs) threatened the survivability of high-speed, high-altitude bombers. Less costly, nuclear-armed ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles) were also entering service.

As a result, in 1961, the expensive B-70 bomber program was canceled before any Valkyries had been completed or flown.

---

Is this the FULL story? I doubt it, BUT imagining myself in a decision-maker group in an analogous situations in a business setting:

Your competition defeated your best asset (a U2), with a technology that YOU also have in development (SAM's & unmanned ICBM's), and the thing you are working on (XB-70) could be obsolete by your own standards before you finished it, its expensive (quarter billion $$ EACH in 2020 dollars) as hell, ANDthe powers that be already tried to kill it TWICE!

Oh, you're also trying to put a man on the moon too.... That kinda project, the Valkyrie, does NOT survive the economics AND the politics of the day.

---

---

ASIDE

I learned something new looking at the Valkyrie.

The XF-108_Rapier, a Mach 3 Interceptor, concieved early 1950's, canceled 1959, not ONE made. Looks oddly modern though even by today's standards. Cool looking plane.

source: Designed to be Fast and Deadly, the XF-108 Rapier was shot down before it got off the ground

View attachment 602662View attachment 602665View attachment 602663View attachment 602664

I believe that the XF-108 was supposed to also have the predecessor of the AWG-9 (including the AIM-54 Phoenix missile), which eventually became the F-14 Tomcat.

 

[amazinblue82]

I believe that the XF-108 was supposed to also have the predecessor of the AWG-9 (including the AIM-54 Phoenix missile), which eventually became the F-14 Tomcat.

ah ha ... hence the 'familiar" look. thx chief



aside .. man I'll tell yah ... less than 60 years,

this ... 1903

to this .. 1959. I am always stunned by what smart, motivated people can come up with....

 

[thethee]

aside .. man I'll tell yah ... less than 60 years,

this ... 1903

to this ..

.. less than 70 years

It boggles the mind

 

[Slap Stick]

IF we actually reached the moon...
I would submit the A-12/SR-71 programs had as much to do with the cancellation of the B-70 as anything else, along with ICBMs.
Titanium,which had to be secured from Russia through shell companies was used extensively in the A-12, which first flew in 1962, and the SR, which first flew in 1964. They had a choice to divert the metal from proven, production aircraft, or continue their production.
New fuels were already developed for both the recon planes eliminating the need for the "zip" fuel used in the B-70. Much of the technology was already being used in the A-12, so it was already proven. No need for a lot of the testing, except to hide the fact it was already being used in production aircraft. Plus, as many of us know, the military is fond of spending our money buding their individual "empires".
Also, the B-70 was admittedly astronomically expensive to operate, while that money could be used on the SRs, which in itself was expensive to operate but it performed a function we needed...recon. We didn't have the satellite technology yet to fulfill that role.

When I return home next week I'll pay my SR maintainer friend and former boss a visit and we can talk about it.
Maybe his friend, who I recently met, who was a crew chief on the SR, and then in the B-52 program at Tinker can shed some light.
Trivia note:as a pilot for Atlas Air, he flew the first of the last four 747s from Boeing to home base before retirement. Man, did he have a lot of good tales to tell!

 

[amazinblue82]

IF we actually reached the moon...
I would submit the A-12/SR-71 programs had as much to do with the cancellation of the B-70 as anything else, along with ICBMs.
Titanium,which had to be secured from Russia through shell companies was used extensively in the A-12, which first flew in 1962, and the SR, which first flew in 1964. They had a choice to divert the metal from proven, production aircraft, or continue their production.
New fuels were already developed for both the recon planes eliminating the need for the "zip" fuel used in the B-70. Much of the technology was already being used in the A-12, so it was already proven. No need for a lot of the testing, except to hide the fact it was already being used in production aircraft. Plus, as many of us know, the military is fond of spending our money buding their individual "empires".
Also, the B-70 was admittedly astronomically expensive to operate, while that money could be used on the SRs, which in itself was expensive to operate but it performed a function we needed...recon. We didn't have the satellite technology yet to fulfill that role.

When I return home next week I'll pay my SR maintainer friend and former boss a visit and we can talk about it.
Maybe his friend, who I recently met, who was a crew chief on the SR, and then in the B-52 program at Tinker can shed some light.
Trivia note:as a pilot for Atlas Air, he flew the first of the last four 747s from Boeing to home base before retirement. Man, did he have a lot of good tales to tell!

cant debate whether we've been to moon or not .. I have offended many a friend/family member on that one

Different topic, and THIS one is here .. a lot (maybe 30 times in this thread, 60 times in total on FCBO). Coolest plane ever. Looking forward to what your SR buddy thinks about the Valkyrie.

 

[70bigblockdodge]

More advanced radars and any modern guided missiles have hampered bomber development excepting stealth technology to elude said radar.

 

[amazinblue82]

Implosions are in the news but "no comment" here on the sad events this week, please. RIP to those fellas though.

---

---

It was 60 years ago (April, 1963) when the nuclear submarine USS Thresher was lost due to implosion. They ultimately found it, torn to shreds and flat as a pancake, on the bottom the Atlantic in 8,400 ft of water.

Its maximum depth (collapse depth, below which its structure could NOT take the pressure) was ~2,000 ft. It sprung a leak, and due to other compounding issues, it flooded and sank beyond collapse depth (while its hull was still full of air, hence the implosion).

Submarines are all over this thread.

The Thresher came to mind (I was alive, but a pre-schooler, so I have no memory of that event in real time) as it was a seventh grade science project (on buoyancy) years later.

I was fascinated to see pics of what was left (almost 300 ft long, 3,500 tons) after the accident .. looked like it went through a paper shredder. All hands (over 100) lost and none recovered.

---

But, implosions are not topic of this post. 200 years of warfare-capable submarines is.

A longish (45 minutes) video below depicts the six boats with six (6) key technologies (author's opinion) that led to today's killer boats.

Starts lower left with a one man, oaken "barrel" with a pedal-powered propeller, developed by US during Revolutionary War. The colonists' comparatively primitive warships could NOT hold a candle to the British boats (at the time the finest Navy in the world), so the "Americans" came up with a scheme to attach bombs to the hull of the British ships under waterline.

Didnt work, but the innovation was carry air IN the boat (called the "turtle", 2 meters long) to stay submerged. 200 years later, that's what ALL submarines STILL need to do. STAY under water for a long time. The Turtle could only do it for an estimated 25 minutes.

Move up the chart the other innovations, along with other advances in weaponry, etc., and subs got physically bigger and bigger.

Top right, is the USS Pennsylvania, an Ohio-class boat, third largest ever made in the world, largest US boat ever made (177 meters long). It'll stay underwater for three months (limited only by amount of food for the crew it can carrry), nuclear powered, launched in 1989 and has YET (as of 2019) to be refueled, and has more firepower (nuclear missiles) than ALL the weapons used by ALL combatants in WWI and WWII, put together.

The six innovations (there are many others of course in electronics, metallurgy, chemistry, etc), and the first combat boat to use it, are:

(1) Carrying onboard oxygen (to stay submerged)
(2) Maneuverability (bow planes, rudder systems, stabilizers, etc. to in essence "fly" underwater)
(3) Multiple on-board torpedoes (multiple kill potential without re-arming)
(4) Nuclear Power (basically never have to surface for fuel)
(5) Nuclear ICBMs (one boat, by itself, can level a whole continent)
(6) Stealth (super-quiet underwater)

Most lethal, dangerous, scary weapons platform humans have ever made. Kinda don't want bad people/rogue leaders to EVER get one of these pieces of heavy metal. A coupleof these boats on the loose could end life on this rock.

Anyway, the basics in long video and you'll learn/refresh what 200 years of key technologies submarines perfected to get their frightening, actually stunning/extraordinary capabilities.

 

[Slap Stick]

cant debate whether we've been to moon or not .. I have offended many a friend/family member on that one

Different topic, and THIS one is here .. a lot (maybe 30 times in this thread, 60 times in total on FCBO). Coolest plane ever. Looking forward to what your SR buddy thinks about the Valkyrie.

View attachment 602787

I'm presently at my son's in N Alabama and won't get back home until late next week. I'll get to my buddy's house and do some mandatory research...aka drink bier and then post the info.

 

[70bigblockdodge]

Implosions are in the news but "no comment" here on the sad events this week, please. RIP to those fellas though.

---

---

It was 60 years ago (April, 1963) when the nuclear submarine USS Thresher was lost due to implosion. They ultimately found it, torn to shreds and flat as a pancake, on the bottom the Atlantic in 8,400 ft of water.

Its maximum depth (collapse depth, below which its structure could NOT take the pressure) was ~2,000 ft. It sprung a leak, and due to other compounding issues, it flooded and sank beyond collapse depth (while its hull was still full of air, hence the implosion).

View attachment 603061View attachment 603065

Submarines are all over this thread.

The Thresher came to mind (I was alive, but a pre-schooler, so I have no memory of that event in real time) as it was a seventh grade science project (on buoyancy) years later.

I was fascinated to see pics of what was left (almost 300 ft long, 3,500 tons) after the accident .. looked like it went through a paper shredder. All hands (over 100) lost and none recovered.

---

But, implosions are not topic of this post. 200 years of warfare-capable submarines is.

A longish (45 minutes) video below depicts the six boats with six (6) key technologies (author's opinion) that led to today's killer boats.

Starts lower left with a one man, oaken "barrel" with a pedal-powered propeller, developed by US during Revolutionary War. The colonists' comparatively primitive warships could NOT hold a candle to the British boats (at the time the finest Navy in the world), so the "Americans" came up with a scheme to attach bombs to the hull of the British ships under waterline.

Didnt work, but the innovation was carry air IN the boat (called the "turtle", 2 meters long) to stay submerged. 200 years later, that's what ALL submarines STILL need to do. STAY under water for a long time. The Turtle could only do it for an estimated 25 minutes.

Move up the chart the other innovations, along with other advances in weaponry, etc., and subs got physically bigger and bigger.

Top right, is the USS Pennsylvania, an Ohio-class boat, third largest ever made in the world, largest US boat ever made (177 meters long). It'll stay underwater for three months (limited only by amount of food for the crew it can carrry), nuclear powered, launched in 1989 and has YET (as of 2019) to be refueled, and has more firepower (nuclear missiles) than ALL the weapons used by ALL combatants in WWI and WWII, put together.

View attachment 603060

The six innovations (there are many others of course in electronics, metallurgy, chemistry, etc), and the first combat boat to use it, are:

(1) Carrying onboard oxygen (to stay submerged)
(2) Maneuverability (bow planes, rudder systems, stabilizers, etc. to in essence "fly" underwater)
(3) Multiple on-board torpedoes (multiple kill potential without re-arming)
(4) Nuclear Power (basically never have to surface for fuel)
(5) Nuclear ICBMs (one boat, by itself, can level a whole continent)
(6) Stealth (super-quiet underwater)

Most lethal, dangerous, scary weapons platform humans have ever made. Kinda don't want bad people/rogue leaders to EVER get one of these pieces of heavy metal. A coupleof these boats on the loose could end life on this rock.

Anyway, the basics in long video and you'll learn/refresh what 200 years of key technologies submarines perfected to get their frightening, actually stunning/extraordinary capabilities.

If your the bad guy you do not want a Boomer showing up along your coast. Bad enough if you motivate the US to swing a carrier, and it's entourage ( the fast attack subs usually hang out with carrier groups) by your coast.

 

[amazinblue82]

If your the bad guy you do not want a Boomer showing up along your coast. Bad enough if you motivate the US to swing a carrier, and it's entourage ( the fast attack subs usually hang out with carrier groups) by your coast.

especially if that boomer was on Ohio-class boat .. you MIGHT not even know its there. Good thing for our enemies we are NOT so quick to park our heavy weapons, let alone a carrier group, off their coasts.

They'd have a real bad day(s) in store. reminds me of one of my all time fav flicks. no such thing as "cat" drivers, but Ohio-class boats are damn stealthy AND packin'.

 

[70bigblockdodge]

The new Columbia class SSBM will be even quieter if the propulsion works.

 

[amazinblue82]

artist's conception.

Columbia-class, Ohio-class boat replacement, electric motor (vs. gear reduction) drive, 42 year life, launching 2031.

Although still evolving, the following are some of the characteristics for the SSBN(X) design:

• Expected 42-year service life, including 124 deterrent patrols.
• Nuclear fuel core that will power the submarine for its entire expected service life, unlike the Ohio-class submarines, which require a mid-life nuclear refueling.
• Missile launch tubes that are the same size as those of the Ohio class, with a diameter of 87 inches (2,200 mm) and a height sufficient to accommodate a D-5 Trident II missile.
• Beam at least as great as the 42-foot (13 m) beam of the Ohio-class submarines
• 16 missile launch tubes instead of 24 missile launch tubes on Ohio-class submarines.
• Although the SSBN(X) is to have fewer launch tubes than the Ohio-class submarine, SSBN(X) is expected to have a submerged displacement about the same as that of Ohio-class submarines

source: Columbia-class submarine - Wikipedia

 

[3175375]

ZR-3, USS Los Angeles, was a zeppelin built in Germany for the United States Navy as part of a reparations payment. She was our longest-serving airship from 1924-1939. Her landing onboard the USS Saratoga on 28 January 1928 was a one-time event and as far as I know the only airship landing on a carrier. There possibly were others during the World War II years, but I haven’t found any documented yet.

 

[D Cluley]

ZR-3, USS Los Angeles, was a zeppelin built in Germany for the United States Navy as part of a reparations payment. She was our longest-serving airship from 1924-1939. Her landing onboard the USS Saratoga on 28 January 1928 was a one-time event and as far as I know the only airship landing on a carrier. There possibly were others during the World War II years, but I haven’t found any documented yet.

View attachment 605689

That is very cool. I've been interested in dirigibles since I was a kid, but had never seen that photo. I would doubt that any carrier landings happened after the war started because I think there is a real limit to what was still flying. Off the top of my head, I think the Germans still had 2 ships after the Hindenburg crash in '37 but I don't think there were any others at that point, and I think they were scapped fairly early in the war for their aluminum alloy to build planes.

Even wilder than an airship on a carrier, was the US's plans to use airships as carriers. A trapeze mechanism allowed them to catch and launch small biplanes from under the airships, mostly for scouting. Technically it worked quite well, but much of the Navy was not sold on the idea, and the loss of the Akron & Macon ships killed off any further plans.

 

[bnz84]

So cool. So much metal.
Watch the Retired 'Big Boy' Steam Train Rescue a Stalled Freight Train in Nebraska