Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The XB-70 (2019)

codex99.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 137 posts

Re: The XB-70 (2019)

#121

Post by euroderf »

justinator wrote: post #72
runjake wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I know, what actually killed the XB-70 was ICBM advancements. The B-52 survived by becoming a low altitude bomber and an excellent, cheap nuclear-capable cruise missile delivery platform that was comparatively cheap to operate at the same level of effectiveness as the B1-B and B-2A for similar roles. Russia more or less mirrored this with the Tu-95.

The B52 was never a low altitude bomber, you're thinking of the B1A, which was to be a high altitude, super sonic bomber but SAM missile tech advanced faster than the development of the bomber could happen, and it was canned, before being resurrected as a subsonic, low altitude bomber (the B1B). The XB-70 couldn't make that switch because it was a ridiculous design (for starters). The B52 role was to have wings (and…

> observe the F4

Isn't there a truism that the F4 demonstrates that with big enough engines, you can get any lump of junk up into the air ?

Re: The XB-70 (2019)

#122

Post by seabird »

jiggawatts wrote: post #87
seabird wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are comically off-base on this, man. We are talking about a nuclear bomber. They put fucking nukes on these things. We have 70 years of operational history showing that the 8 engine arrangement works, and there is no good reason to make anything more than the most minimal changes. Go ahead and do that until you're blue in the face with some inconsequential junk SaaS product or phone app or whatever, but warplanes…

The bomber isn’t nuclear. The payload is. The good reason to make changes is the hard reality that your opponents won’t slow down to accomodate your old, inefficient, maintenance-heavy fleet of bombers. Even during peacetime the B-52 fleet is burning money, money that DOGE assures the voting public cannot be wasted on frivolous matters such as HIV prevention. It’s like the Ukraine war. Perfectly good tanks turned out…

If your assessment of role of armor in Ukraine is that it's useless because of drone developments, you're just not playing with a full deck of cards.

You can think what you want and I can't stop you, I just want to say that you shouldn't bring this up around people that do real engineering (especially in aerospace and defense) unless you want to look like an idiot.

Re: The XB-70 (2019)

#123

Post by [deleted] »

lupusreal wrote: post #103
anovikov wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't replace them with 4 engines because those will have to be of bigger diameter and they might scratch the ground of some less than perfect airfields. The engines HAVE to fit into the same nacelles. And they have to provide enough thrust while having same diameter -> this is hard because the goal of replacement is efficiency, and you replace a low-bypass engine for a high-bypass to increase efficiency, which m…

In a peer war it's pretty damn dubious whether a B-52 with four modern engines will be more survivable than a B-52 with 8 antiques. Either way the most they'll be able to do is launch standoff munitions from a distance they hope will keep them safe, and if it doesn't then they're dead anyway. In a scenario short of that, we're just quibbling over the degree of waste American voters will put up with (it's the military…

[deleted]

Re: The XB-70 (2019)

#124

Post by uticus »

ben7799 wrote: post #119
nradov wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah. Everything we know about the B-21 indicates that it's probably pretty survivable against the Chinese air defense system. Especially for stand-off strikes near the Taiwan Strait where it wouldn't have to overfly radar stations. The design was literally optimized for exactly that purpose. Ironically the B-21 is probably safest in the air. The greatest kinetic threat is on the ground because forward air bases gener…

It's hard to believe the B-21 would ever be stored at a forward missile base. They'd likely take off from the US, fly wherever they need to go for their mission without landing, and then fly all the way back to the US. Same as the B-2. Similarly it's unlikely a drone strike is an issue due to distance.

> It's hard to believe the B-21 would ever be stored at a forward missile base.

Not a "missle base", but: "The B-52...is one of two currently at RAF Fairford in England as part of a routine Bomber Task Force (BTF) deployment." [0]

Also, more pertinent to location in scope, US has been increasing forward-based capabilities in south pacific, for example [1].

[0] https://www.twz.com/air/b-52-flies-close-to-border-of-russia...

[1] https://www.twz.com/air/massive-wwii-b-29-bomber-base-fully-...

Re: The XB-70 (2019)

#125

Post by ben7799 »

uticus wrote: post #124
ben7799 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to believe the B-21 would ever be stored at a forward missile base. They'd likely take off from the US, fly wherever they need to go for their mission without landing, and then fly all the way back to the US. Same as the B-2. Similarly it's unlikely a drone strike is an issue due to distance.

> It's hard to believe the B-21 would ever be stored at a forward missile base. Not a "missle base", but: "The B-52...is one of two currently at RAF Fairford in England as part of a routine Bomber Task Force (BTF) deployment." [0] Also, more pertinent to location in scope, US has been increasing forward-based capabilities in south pacific, for example [1]. [0] https://www.twz.com/air/b-52-flies-close-to-border-of-rus…

I should not have said "missile base". I just meant any kind of forward base outside the US.

The B-52, etc.. is just different. It's not as high value of an asset as the B-2 or the B-21 will be and gets treated differently.

Re: The XB-70 (2019)

#126

Post by Spooky23 »

justinator wrote: post #72
runjake wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I know, what actually killed the XB-70 was ICBM advancements. The B-52 survived by becoming a low altitude bomber and an excellent, cheap nuclear-capable cruise missile delivery platform that was comparatively cheap to operate at the same level of effectiveness as the B1-B and B-2A for similar roles. Russia more or less mirrored this with the Tu-95.

The B52 was never a low altitude bomber, you're thinking of the B1A, which was to be a high altitude, super sonic bomber but SAM missile tech advanced faster than the development of the bomber could happen, and it was canned, before being resurrected as a subsonic, low altitude bomber (the B1B). The XB-70 couldn't make that switch because it was a ridiculous design (for starters). The B52 role was to have wings (and…

The Vietnam era is totally different. LeMay and Powers were sociopaths whose goal was to nuke things and intercept things that would nuke the US. Survivability wasn’t really a consideration - assuming you finished nuking the Soviets, there would be nothing to return to.

The needs of Vietnam required different tactics, and the airmen paid in blood for the myopic vision of the leaders.

Re: The XB-70 (2019)

#127

Post by Jeema101 »

ben7799 wrote: post #6

I have a love/hate relationship with this plane. In 2014 I got to visit the AF Museum in Dayton, OH. With all the exceptional exhibits there it is completely obvious the XB-70 is THE crown jewel in that museum. And it snowed while we were visiting and they shut down the hangar with the XB-70 because it required a shuttle ride. So now I still have on my bucket list to see it.

It's back in the main exhibit now AFAIK. They completed a 4th hangar some years back and towed it back there:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WptDcLKTYSM

Re: The XB-70 (2019)

#128

Post by WillPostForFood »

nradov wrote: post #113
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The greatest kinetic threat is from drone swarm attacks, which can be delivered to the vicinity of an airbase from a handful of anonymous-looking trucks or vans. One or two grenade-strength shrapnel devices are enough to make a $700m dollar special project useless.

How does a truck drive to Diego Garcia?

There is a major shipping lane that runs SE of Diego Garcia.

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:72.1/cente...

You could try a surprise drone attack from a container ship. Looks like the closest ship is about 125 miles away, that might be pushing the range a bit.

Re: The XB-70 (2019)

#129

Post by lazide »

euroderf wrote: post #121
justinator wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The B52 was never a low altitude bomber, you're thinking of the B1A, which was to be a high altitude, super sonic bomber but SAM missile tech advanced faster than the development of the bomber could happen, and it was canned, before being resurrected as a subsonic, low altitude bomber (the B1B). The XB-70 couldn't make that switch because it was a ridiculous design (for starters). The B52 role was to have wings (and…

> observe the F4 Isn't there a truism that the F4 demonstrates that with big enough engines, you can get any lump of junk up into the air ?

The way I heard it, ‘with enough power, even a brick will fly’

Re: The XB-70 (2019)

#130

Post by rsprinkle »

adzm wrote: post #115
CoastalCoder wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have one at the Air Force museum in Dayton. I highly recommend visiting it for anyone interested in this stuff. It's an amazing museum, and it's totally free!

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact... I'm not really into this kind of thing but this museum is truly fascinating; I second the recommendation wholeheartedly

Not only is the museum itself awesome (and free), they are also responsible for almost every US warplane on display around the world. You can download a spreadsheet from their website showing where planes are on "loan".
Post reply on HN