North American XB-70 Valkyrie

[Orionblamblam]

That's just so full of it.

I've had the rationale for this explained to me at length several times. But none of those explanations made a lick of sense to me.

Note that the agreement includes three financial hits:
1) $1000 up-front
2) 4% royalty
3) $2,000,000 insurance

Now, the royalty I could understand. But the others... Hmmm. Some years ago I cast up something like 100 1/144 scale X-20 Dyna Soar resin models My plan was to sell 'em for $5 each, and I didn't actually expect to sell them all (I've never sold 100 of *anything*). So, do the math... five bucks times one hundred... minus a thousand bucks.

So somwhere in my basement I've got a box of nearly decade-old Dyna Soar kits I'll never be able to do anything with. In the mean time, Chinese companies can flood the market with them. Hell, the Chinese can flood the market with Dyna Soar model kits that leak cadmium.

This is why you'll never see me publish anything I got from Boeing (see: "Quiet Bird"). If I got it from the DoD or NASA or NARA... by the gods, it's public friggen' domain! Note that Lockheed has, at least so far, taken an entirely different approach. I contacted an author of a recent book on Convair projects on this very topic, and his reply was the Lockheed, which owns General Dynamics which owned Convair, didn't mind and didn't interfere.

 

[Stargazer]

Darkstar? Polar Star?? Aren't these Lockheed, or are we talking about different projects?? I'm kind of lost here...

Oh, and of course I forgot Stearman in my list... : ;D

 

[JFC Fuller]

Really? 14? Which weapons was it meant to carry? And where in that skinny airframe were they going to be stored?

My understanding was that the B-70 had just two tiny weapons bays?

You can consult the PDF of the B-70A SAC from 1960 at my site HERE

WARNING -- LINK GOES TO PDF WHICH IS MULTI MEG!

For those who are lazy, here goes what the USAF wanted in 1960 for the B-70A regarding weapon options

1 x Class A Nuclear Device weighing 25,000 lbs
or
2 x Class B Nuclear Devices weighing 10,000 lbs each
or
2 x Class C (FUFO) Nuclear Devices weighing 8,500 lbs each
or
4 x Class D Nuclear Devices Weighing 2,000 lbs each

Alternately; the B-70 could carry

2 x Air-Surface Missiles and 1 x Class B Device
or
2 x Air-Surface Missiles and 4 x Class D Devices

Maximum bombload was to be 25,000 lbs.

That does not give 14 and those loads are not simultaneous. Maximum number of warheads would be 4 class D weapons.

How do those devices translate into actual weapons?

 

[RyanC]

The US Military used "Weapon Classes" to designate rough dimensions and masses for nuclear weapons to allow for semi rough detail without revealing *too* much of their specific details.

The B41 Device arose out of a requirement for a CLASS B device to give you an example.

 

[JFC Fuller]

The US Military used "Weapon Classes" to designate rough dimensions and masses for nuclear weapons to allow for semi rough detail without revealing *too* much of their specific details.

The B41 Device arose out of a requirement for a CLASS B device to give you an example.

So based on that plan you are looking at:

2 x B41 (max 25mt each)

or

2 x B53 (max 9mt each)

or

4 x B-28 (1.45mt max)

 

[RyanC]

This memo from 1959 shows why SAC wanted the B-70:

1959 Memo from Tommy Power, CINCSAC

For example, a VN-12 target, which is not particularly hard, with a radius of five (5) miles, would require twelve (12) Minute-man missiles or two (2) Class B gravity bombs to achieve a 90% probability of target destruction.

If the B-70 force consisted of seven Heavy Bomb Wings, each with a UE/PAA of fifteen aircraft; you would have 105 aircraft.

With a 60% readiness rate and a loss rate of 25% of the ready aircraft before the target(s) were bombed, you would be able to destroy 47 x VN-12 targets.

To hold the same number of targets (47) at risk with a perfectly reliable Minuteman I force, you'd need 564 missiles.

 

[JFC Fuller]

RyanCrierie,

I dont doubt why SAC wanted it, and it would have made a useful element in the deterrent, I just wanted to be clear about the actual payload of the type. In terms of actual USAF free-fall nuclear weapons incentory I think we have it more or less nailed.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The weapons bays on the B-70A were far from small. There were two bays back to back each 14 feet long and about 6 feet wide and high. They used a shared two piece sliding door system where the aft door would slide to the rear to expose the aft bay and then the forward door would slide to where the aft door was covering the aft bay to expose the forward bay. Each bay could carry a nuclear weapon up to 10,000 lbs in weight and a conventional bomb up to 20,000 lbs in weight. They could also carry multiples of smaller weapons and a new air to ground missile conceptually similar to the later SRAM. Also external pylons were planned for carrying Skybolts, more fuel and presumably more weapons. Source: Jenkins and Landis 2004.

 

[Stargazer]

And where does the Pye Wacket lenticular missile fit in?? ???

 

[JFC Fuller]

There were two bays back to back each 14 feet long and about 6 feet wide and high.

These dimensions fit almost perfectly with the above analysis for the B-41 and B-53 numbers. The dimensions of those weapons would only have allowed one to be carried per weapons bay.

The one theoretical exception is the B-28, based on its dimensions (22inches / 1.84 ft) it may have been possible to squeeze 3 per bay (without stacking them somehow), of course this depends on the layout of the bomb racks, electronics, etc, etc. What could have been interesting is a rotary launcher for the B-28 with 5+ rounds per bay, however, entirely hypothetical.

However, as the document RyanCrierie provided shows, the two very high yield weapons had a certain utility without moving to multiples of smaller weapons. As I understand it the B-52 usually operated with just 4 B-28's, the same number being suggested for the B-70.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

And where does the Pye Wacket lenticular missile fit in?? ???

In the weapons bay. Page 224 of Valkyrie details that the lenticular missiles would be stacked in the weapons bay to be most space efficent and have the proper launch position. Two rows of five missiles could be accomodated in each bay. Obviously the aft bay would be used for Pye Wacket missiles and the forward bay for air to ground ordnance.

 

[JFC Fuller]

In the weapons bay. Page 224 of Valkyrie details that the lenticular missiles would be stacked in the weapons bay to be most space efficent and have the proper launch position. Two rows of five missiles could be accomodated in each bay. Obviously the aft bay would be used for Pye Wacket missiles and the forward bay for air to ground ordnance.

Which means that carrying the Pye Wacket lenticular missile (I assume there was to be an extensive suite of warners and jammers in addition to the missile interceptors?) would immediately remove the ability of a single aircraft to provide the 90% probability destruction of a VN-12 target as only 1 B-41 or B-53 would be able to be carried.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Which means that carrying the Pye Wacket lenticular missile (I assume there was to be an extensive suite of warners and jammers in addition to the missile interceptors?) would immediately remove the ability of a single aircraft to provide the 90% probability destruction of a VN-12 target as only 1 B-41 or B-53 would be able to be carried.

Pye Wacket was only a study contract in 1960 and some time from service entry. So I would imagine by the time this system was ready they would have the B61 bomb (>1968) and not be limited to the large B41s and B53s for anti bunker attack.

Edit: The B-70A would have an extensive self defense sensor and jammer system without Pye Wacket.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Pye Wacket was only a study contract in 1960 and some time from service entry. So I would imagine by the time this system was ready they would have the B61 bomb (>1968) and not be limited to the large B41s and B53s for anti bunker attack.

Edit: The B-70A would have an extensive self defense sensor and jammer system without Pye Wacket.

No B-61 variant (340 kt max) is going to provide anywhere near the yield of the weapons mentioned here and the bunker busting Mod-11 did not enter service until 1997. Obviously the B61 would provide more options in the inventory though.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

No B-61 variant (340 kt max) is going to provide anywhere near the yield of the weapons mentioned here and the bunker busting Mod-11 did not enter service until 1997. Obviously the B61 would provide more options in the inventory though.

Opps my bad on the bunker busting. But still, come on... Any target that a B-70 needs to shot itself into with Pye Wackets is going to be the most defended target in the world (Moscow) so its either two B-70s dropping single big bunker busters or nothing.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Well the Soviets peaked at about 1,000 SA-2 sites (so I am told) and deployed them pretty widely, covering most of the major possible ingress points, any deployment of the B-70 would probably have resulted in an adapted SA-2 deployment with potentially slightly different variants, focussed on higher speed targets. An operational B-70 force may have soon found itself requiring the Pye Wackets as standard.

However, there is always the possibility that custom designed weapons could have been produced for the B-70 enabling two high yield weapons to be carried in one bay- though that is as hypothetical as my B-28 rotary launcher. ;D

 

[Steve Pace]

Artwork from an artist I'm not familiar with. -SP

 

[aim9xray]

That would likely be Ren Wicks; see http://www.americanartarchives.com/wicks.htm. Another reference can be seen here: http://www.illustrationmundo.com/wp/2745.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Let's the XB-70/ Dyna-Soar combo....Haven't seen that one in a while.

 

[Steve Pace]

An early NAA concept. -SP

 

[Steve Pace]

A piece of the NASA F-104 flown by Walker - top and bottom. I visited both crash sites in the summer of 1990. -SP

 

[Steve Pace]

This pdf details Walter A. Spivak's invention of the vg windshield employed by the two XB-70As. He was the chief engineer. -SP

 

[Triton]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wsPLthWrr8&NR=1

 

[Triton]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vPvr29wJ80

 

[Triton]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ESXeswZjkc&feature=related

 

[JFC Fuller]

Has anybody ever seen any reference to how many B-70's USAF/SAC was looking to procure prior to the programmes cancellation as a weapons programme? I have seen plenty of history about the types development and cancellation but I have never seen any reference as to how the aircraft was to fit into the force structure prior to the shift to research programme?


Thank you in advance, sealordlawrence.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Has anybody ever seen any reference to how many B-70's USAF/SAC was looking to procure prior to the programmes cancellation as a weapons programme? I have seen plenty of history about the types development and cancellation but I have never seen any reference as to how the aircraft was to fit into the force structure prior to the shift to research programme?

According to the Air Force Magazine Volume 52 it was planned to acquire 200 B-70's as does 'Scandal at the Pentagon: a challenge to democracy' by William McGaffin and Erwin Knoll (1969). Space/Aeronautics Volume 35 says the following:

'The reinstated Eisenhower plan for the B-70 would have involved a total expenditure of $2.7 billion and brought the bomber up to full weapon-system status. Production of about 200 airplanes would have increased this sum by $4.5 billion.'

Regarding the B-58 I came across this little nugget from Aviation week in 1959:

'Present USAF programing indicates the B-58 fleet may eventually total 200 aircraft but only 106 have been financed'

I am assuming that this only covers the B-58A and does not cover the planned 185 B-58B aircraft that were cancelled in June 1959? However, according to The History of US Electronic Warfare: "The renaissance years, 1946 to 1964"

'At the beginning of 1960 the Air Force had 290 of these supersonic medium bombers on order'

The 290 figure is actually quite consistent across a number of sources so I am running on this theory- 106 production B-58A (40 planned for FY1960, cut back to 32) plus 185 B-58B for 291 B-58's in total.

And whilst I am at it, of the 1,012 Skybolt's that were planned at the time of cancellation only 408 were to be deployed, 4 on each of 102 B-52H aircraft.

 

[Steve Pace]

Here's B-70 chief engineer Spivak's vg widshield patent application. -SP

 

[toura]

Hi XB 70 Guy.
A BAD DAY !!!
from "Aviation week"

 

[The Artist]

Artwork from an artist I'm not familiar with. -SP

That is Ren Wicks' work. Along with what was mentioned on that other site, he also did some of the TWA travel posters for Howard Hughes along with a number of paintings for the Air Force Art Program. He was one of the founding members of the American Society of Aviation Artists and at the forums he was a very likable person to talk with about art or aviation.

While sorting through a collection of Air Force lithographs at the museum today I saw a few of his space shuttle themed Air Force Art paintings for the first time. Very nice work.

 

[Triton]

Model of North American XB-70 Valkyrie manufactured by Topping found on eBay.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Super-Rare-XB-70-Valkyrie-Manufacturer-Desk-Model-Topping-/180751814774?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a15a5d076

 

[Triton]

North American Aviation XB-70 Valkyrie model found on eBay.

[link no longer active]

 

[Triton]

North American Aviation XB-70 Valkyrie model found on eBay.

 

[Steve Pace]

I've started a facebook devoted to all things B-70 entitled North American B-70 Valkyrie. It will continue to grow. Please check it out. -SP

 

[Orionblamblam]

And it would be located *where,* exactly?

Facebook has a user-intollerant search function.

 

[Steve Pace]

In your search bar just type: North American B-70 Valkyrie facebook

 

[Orionblamblam]

This one?
http://www.facebook.com/pages/North-American-XB-70-Valkyrie/142507039098945

So far, it's just a cut-and-paste from Wikipedia. I've found a *lot* of FB pages like that.

 

[Stargazer]

This one?
http://www.facebook.com/pages/North-American-XB-70-Valkyrie/142507039098945

So far, it's just a cut-and-paste from Wikipedia. I've found a *lot* of FB pages like that.

Same here. And I don't give a hoot about them...

 

[Steve Pace]

Click this: http://www.facebook.com/pages/getting_started?page_id=311286272301194#!/pages/North-American-B-70-Valkyrie/311286272301194?skip_nax_wizard=true it will get you there. -SP

 

[Orionblamblam]

That's more like it. Searching Facebook is an excercise in frustration.