Why did they kill it, /k/?

Money.

>>31439308
It became hungry for spotter aircraft.

Once an aircraft get the taste for other aircraft you must put it down.

>>31439308
>no real role other than "give SAC more monies"
>ICBMs become practical and common

>>31439320
>>31439402
>not wanting the sexiest plane to ever break the sound barrier

>>31439308
Something along the lines that it would have lead to an opposing SAM system designed to counter a Mach 3 bomber that would have been a pain in the ass for any aircraft in the US inventory to deal with.

>Air defense got better.
>Ballistic missiles became more accurate , reliable and started getting more funding than bomber development.
>MIRV warheads became a thing.

>>31439905
But we still use the Lancer, right?

>>31439455
>what is the sr-71

>>31439937
It's not as retard fast or built around being a pure nuke delivery platform though.

>>31439937
Yes we do. Difference is the XB70 was intended as a deep penetration bomber, fly into soviet airspace and drop nukes on cities/airbases/silos/etc. The B1 and B2 are used as a tactical strike asset, hitting forward bases and infastucture. Deep penetration air raids against a modern air defense system isnt really a thing anymore, that's what cruise missiles are for.

>>31439340
Kek.

>>31439992
>>31439996
What prevents it from operating in a conventional role? Too fast?

>>31439340

> Valkyrie develops a taste for aircraft aluminum
> escapes from its hangar
> is seen roaming the skies, preying on unsuspecting aircraft
> the Air Force mounts a search
> loses several fighters before attacking the Valkyrie with a swarm of missiles
> nobody ever finds the wreckage
> to this day, pilots tell of a giant white aircraft that stalks the far corners of the atmosphere, its afterburners howling in the night

>>31439308

They didn't want a bomber built in the 60's that could outrun an F-35 in 2016 by a full Mach number.

>>31440086

Trying to pick out ground targets at Mach 3.0 without completely overshooting the combat area would be challenge. If you're dropping nukes, it doesn't matter because you're bombing an entire city and you only have to get it generally close to the target. With conventional bombs you need to be a lot more careful or you'll miss.

>>31440086
You don't need a Mach 3 aircraft if you're doing conventional bombing missions
>>31439308
ICBMs do the exact same job only better.

The sole reason to get have a dedicated nuclear bomber today is for a rapid stealth surprise attack.

Tactical nukes can be carried by any in service fighter, ICBMs can target multiple sites with strategic nukes from a single missile and subs provide a almost unstoppable return fire capability.

>>31440086
The nature of its role changed. When it was first envisioned large bomber wings sweeping into enemy air space to pulverize infastucture and second strike capabilities was the theory of the day. By the time it went from a concept on a drawing board to a production model anti air systems, both missiles and air tracking and coordinating, had developed to the point that sending in waves of bombers was asking for 95% casualties. This realization was also the driving force behind developing low observable aspect aircraft aka stealth bombers. By the time the B1 was entering production the game had changed. Instead of going in to nuke Moscow or hit soviet first strike assets they switched roles to hitting staging areas, airfields, bridges and tank brigades.

File: Robert_McNamara_official_portrait.jpg (3MB, 2440x3050px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2440x3050px

This fucker. It's also why we had the bad-version M16s and lousy strategy in Vietnam

>>31440280
He's also why Pierre Sprey was in a position to hook up with Boyd and Riccioni.

>>31440280
He's also why there's hardly any original Japan left.

>>31440349
What

>>31440349
That would be Lemay. In Fog of War McNamara stated that they'd be war criminals if they lost the war, and then his meddlings into Vietnam happened.

>black project aircraft dont exist

if it got killed its because something better was developed

File: 0813764.jpg (240KB, 1800x1185px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1800x1185px

This little fucker didn't help.

>>31439308
Icbms are cheaper and shit

>>31439308
Because it would have become obsolete very quickly.

And thus better shit was made.

File: in-flight.jpg (19KB, 867x620px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 867x620px

Too beautiful for this world

She's nuking angels in heaven now

File: t-4 (2).jpg (352KB, 1093x676px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 1093x676px

>>31439308
ICBMs.

>>31439992
The B1 no longer has a nuclear mission.

>>31439937
Not B-1A, and B-1B has a completely different role.

>>31440119
What?

>>31441484
He said that the MIB and CIA conspired to keep a brother plane down by traveling back in time so that the Fat Cats at Boeing can keep producing F-35s. Also something something A-10.

>>31441552
Oh thanks, it all makes sense now

File: 452.png (598KB, 600x878px) Image search: [Google]

598KB, 600x878px

>>31440112

>>31439996
I would suggest looking at the b-21 intended mission profile

>>31441581
The B-21 provides a niche of being able to provide stealth first strike capability to a location anywhere in the world without warning.

File: 40r6 s-400 triumf (1).jpg (288KB, 850x600px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 850x600px

>>31441671
>anywhere in the world

>>31440112

Beautiful piece of prose. Nicely done.

10/10

File: ConcordeInFlightBA_P2_0.jpg (990KB, 1680x1120px) Image search: [Google]

990KB, 1680x1120px

>>31439455

>sexiest plane to ever break the sound barrier

Already taken.

The RAF should have bought a bunch and armed them with blue steel.

>>31439308
Because it would have been food for SAMs

>>31439937
>But we still use the Lancer

Reagan brought that back because it was a campaign promise.

Carter canceled it after the B-2 program showed much better promise. But the B-2 was still secret during the 1980 election.

>>31439308
an f104, those tend to kill a lot of things

>>31439308
Because it crashed in a PR stint. You can't make a plane look good that fails when it is meant to look good.

>>31440112
2spooky4me

File: B-1_03.jpg (221KB, 1400x859px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1400x859px

>>31439937
>>31439992
>>31439996
>>31441447
>>31444982
>tfw the B-1 is getting equipped with an AESA radar

Feels good senpai.

>>31440280
i hate this faggot

The concept of a high and fast strategic bomber was obsolete by the time of the accident.

B-1 only got made because it could fly low and fast. Plus Reagan gibe me dats to the MI complex

File: Capability.gif (57KB, 701x541px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 701x541px

Mach 3 Life Best Life.

File: Figure4.gif (56KB, 706x548px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 706x548px

>>31445777

File: Figure5.gif (57KB, 671x542px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 671x542px

>>31445786

File: Figure7.gif (37KB, 680x568px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 680x568px

>>31445797

File: Figure8.gif (37KB, 729x514px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 729x514px

>>31445815

File: Figure9.gif (65KB, 702x569px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 702x569px

>>31445856

File: Figure10.gif (35KB, 696x571px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 696x571px

>>31445871

File: Figure 12.gif (34KB, 733x556px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 733x556px

>>31445883

>>31445706
They're also planning on loading it with up to 144 SDB-series bombs.

File: xb-70.jpg (1MB, 2936x2304px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2936x2304px

>>31439340
>>31440746
>>31445302
the xb-70 program was cancelled several years before the crash happened

>>31446190
I can't even imagine what you'd drop that many SDBs on.

>>31446452
> Fly over tank division after wild weasels killed all the AA.
> This tank gets a SDB
> That tank gets a SDB
> every tank gets a SDB

>>31446452
You loiter and SDB everything that moves.

>>31446664
Even better: You sit 50NMI away as a bunch of F-35s tag targets for you.

>>31439308
ICBMs, foresight into faster soviet AA missiles, limited payload, maintenance nightmare, obsolete design.

Dont get me wrong, its a phenomenal aircraft with bad ass specs even to this day, but it would have had no use. an ICBM is faster and harder to intercept, and a B-52 carries more and costs less. A stealth strike can be done by a sub with IRBMs.

>>31446190
Not to mention various AA missles. Can anyone spell meteor?

>>31439308
I have a family friend that was a mechanic for the XB-70. Sometime I'll ask some more about it. I remember Him, my dad, and I went up to the Air force museum in Dayton to see it. The only story I can recall is that the fuel tanks leaked until they got up to speed and altitude because if they didn't they'd expand too much and burst.

>>31450574
That was a problem with the SR-71. They literally just stored the fuel in the fuselage with no actual tank, and the panels were loose for thermal expansion so on the ground it leaked like a sieve.

>>31450665
sometime soon I'll ask him for more detail on it. I was a probably 13 when he told me that story so I don't recall all the details. I'm sure he would have some interesting things to say about the XB-70