Longer B-58 Hustler service?

[Rule of cool]

I would have hoped that a B58 doing a conventional attack might do something different from the B52, to make use of its speed.

 

[Byeman]

I would have hoped that a B58 doing a conventional attack might do something different from the B52, to make use of its speed.

Too fast for that

 

[Scott Kenny]

Losing an expensive bomber like that is quite bad on its own, but why wouldn't the crew have enough time to eject in such a scenario? Or would the results of such engine surge be so immediately catastrophic where there is almost no time to act?

Because the airframe can swap ends, spinning out like a car on ice. G- and air-loads overstress the airframe and the plane disintegrates around you.

https://www.b58hustlerassn.net/loss-of-outboard-engine-destroys-b-58/

As long as that yaw damper mechanism is working correctly... Triply redundant sensors, but not redundant actuators...

Then you have the tail of the bird pass the nose and it comes apart in mid-air again.

I would have hoped that a B58 doing a conventional attack might do something different from the B52, to make use of its speed.

The only thing I really see the B58 doing is getting into and out of any SAM coverage faster.

Admittedly, there should be some improved downrange and cross-range performance for whatever it's dropping (Compare the official numbers for an SRAM versus those if deployed by a Blackbird), but that may-or-may-not-be significant.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Its likely that the proliferation of the very high performing S200 saw to the demise of the B58 in the nuclear penetration role.

It'd be interesting to see it get a last blast in a conventional role, perhaps in Vietnam in 1972.

A nail in the coffin, perhaps. But it was an orphan fleet, expensive to operate, at a time when the USAF was getting rid of bombers in favour of ICBMs. To keep it in service longer you probably need to avoid that shift toward ICBMs... somehow.

Admittedly, there should be some improved downrange and cross-range performance for whatever it's dropping (Compare the official numbers for an SRAM versus those if deployed by a Blackbird), but that may-or-may-not-be significant.

The slide which shows the SRAM target footprint launched from a modified SR-71 also shows the envelope for a Mach 1.6/50,000 foot launch:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/lockheed-a-12-and-sr-71-projects.3780/page-3#post-312542

Not nearly as impressive. Mach 2 would presumably do better, though how much of that comes from speed and how much from altitude isn't clear.

 

[TomcatViP]

The A-12 had a bomber derivative that was extensively studied before the SR-71 development.