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.

 

[Scott Kenny]

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.

Have the US figure out radar jamming much sooner? I mean heavy jamming, good enough to allow bombers to get in relatively easy?

Because otherwise the "solution" would be to have ICBMs struggle a lot more into the late 1960s before they started getting reliable and able to throw useful weights...

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.

Thank you very much!

And no, doesn't look to be a significant improvement in range until you're really high and fast.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Have the US figure out radar jamming much sooner? I mean heavy jamming, good enough to allow bombers to get in relatively easy?

Because otherwise the "solution" would be to have ICBMs struggle a lot more into the late 1960s before they started getting reliable and able to throw useful weights...

My pet PoD is that the H-bomb isn't developed until appreciably later.

If you're chucking megatons around, the CEPs of a mile or more from early ICBMs don't matter too much, at least for soft targets. And hardening didn't really kick off until later. But if you're stuck using boosted fission weapons, accurate delivery is more important. And in the 1950s, that means bombers.

The ICBM probably does come along, but the buildup is slower, and they're seen as an adjunct to the bombers rather than a replacement for longer. Sure, it might only buy the bomber five more years of superiority. But in those five years, improvements to the bomber force and to countermeasures against missiles can start skewing the strategic retaliatory force compared to OTL.

 

[Scott Kenny]

My pet PoD is that the H-bomb isn't developed until appreciably later.

Yeah, that'd do it... And/or greatly push precision guidance for what missiles they do have...

 

[Archibald]

I kinda of like that, because of the five-engine original Atlas rocket. A huge beast that will help space exploration. Maybe the POD could be, Edward Teller is killed by the tramway that OTL only mutilated him.

 

[Yellow Palace]

I kinda of like that, because of the five-engine original Atlas rocket. A huge beast that will help space exploration. Maybe the POD could be, Edward Teller is killed by the tramway that OTL only mutilated him.

Yeah, I think you get the Big Atlas, with all that implies. Good and bad.

Getting rid of Teller probably isn't necessary or sufficient to delay the H-bomb. For one thing, the United States, Soviet Union, and United Kingdom all seem to have independently arrived at the same basic architecture within the space of five or six years. There was enough opposition to the 'crash' program at the time. Simply letting the opponents win probably delays the first test to 1955 or 1956, after the 1953 RDS-6s 'Sloika' test - late enough to derail OTL's missile programs and let bombers get a bit more of a foot in the door.

In such a timeline, expect Teller's description of the device as an 'alarm clock' to be more prominent, and more debate over who tested the first hydrogen bomb.

 

[TJDougherty01]

If you are looking for a good "insider's account" of the development of fusion weapons, Let me recommend this:

 

[Christopher Wang]

If the Convair B-58 Hustler remained in service beyond 1970, there is also the possibility that its four General Electric J79 afterburning turbojets would have been replaced by the same number of Pratt & Whitney PW1120 afterburning turbofans / turbojets* as was originally planned for the Boeing Super Phantom.

*As explained by @F119Doctor, the PW1120 is a low-bypass turbofan (0.36:1) which is often called a "leaky turbojet" because its bypass air is used to cool the engine rather than contributing to thrust.

 

[Apophenia]

If the Convair B-58 Hustler remained in service beyond 1970, there is also the possibility that its four General Electric J79 afterburning turbojets would have been replaced by the same number of Pratt & Whitney PW1120 ...

Except that the PW1120 didn't exist until the 1980s and the B-58 had no need of its reduced diameter. That said, the F100 'parent' core of the PW1120 was available by 1972 and the F100-PW-100 had higher thrust (wet or dry) than its descendant.

 

[Rule of cool]

I xan only imagine the B58 staying in service for a couple of years longer, and maybe used for something niche in Vietnam. It would not be worthwhile to do any modifications.

 

[MadRat]

Built like a big fighter. Maybe it could have been part prowler, part Wild Weasel? It kind of begged for an AWG-9 and AIM-7 and AIM-54 for self escort. The third seat could have been the ferret playing music over his ALQ-99.

SRAM was too niche for a nuclear role. B-58 probably needed something like that, though, when missiles made it impractical to fly higher and faster.

 

[lordroel]

I saw a B58 Hustler for the first time the other day, I was surprised by how small it was. I also finally understand what the combination fuel-weapon store is and does.

Was the design too specific and limited to remain in service beyond 1969? Could it have carried SRAMs or other advanced nukes? What about any conventional role? Was the FB111A a step up or down?

Could it remain in service longer if other countries also oparated it like the RAF ore RAAF ore RCAF.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Could it remain in service longer if other countries also oparated it like the RAF ore RAAF ore RCAF.

Maybe?

It's not really a good replacement for Canberras, for example, being challenging to fly and burning a LOT more fuel. Frankly, I can't see the Canadians flying them at all, unless you made an "F-58" with big radar and long range missiles.