Aviation MegaThread!!!! - Page 258

Trixie · 11-26-2012, 08:31 PM

That's all in the hangar on-base. Worth the trip.

Renner · 11-26-2012, 10:02 PM

ever wonder where they parked Tacit Blue?

remarkably few years separate these two designs

several former Air Force 1 planes are in the same on-base space.

Klay · 11-26-2012, 10:21 PM

Holy smokes, the hardware in there! Is that a P-59?

Motorfiets · 11-27-2012, 08:48 AM

what is the massive propped jet?

found it....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-84H

cool as hell read

Motorfiets · 11-27-2012, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klay

Holy smokes, the hardware in there! Is that a P-59?

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/fac...eet.asp?id=579

JamesG · 11-27-2012, 08:59 AM

It's on my list of places to go. I will probably get kicked out for crossing over the barrier and fondling/drooling on the exhibits.

I_FLY_LOW · 11-27-2012, 09:00 AM

That XB-70 was another plane, way ahead of it's time.
Shame it never made it to full production.

ttpete · 11-27-2012, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I_FLY_LOW

That XB-70 was another plane, way ahead of it's time.
Shame it never made it to full production.

The mission disappeared. ICBMs took it over.

JamesG · 11-27-2012, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ttpete

The mission disappeared. ICBMs took it over.

Not really. The budget is what disappeared. The B-52s soldiered on as the manned part of the nuke triad.

Tis ok though, It's replacement, the B-1 was a much better, more flexible design than a B-70 could have been.

ttpete · 11-27-2012, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesG

Not really. The budget is what disappeared. The B-52s soldiered on as the manned part of the nuke triad.

Tis ok though, It's replacement, the B-1 was a much better, more flexible design than a B-70 could have been.

The budget disappeared because the mission went away. High altitude bombing went away when ground to air missiles became able to take the bombers out and ICBMs with MIRVed warheads came along. The B-52s were able to switch to low level operation, and the B-1 was designed for it. The B-70 was something SAC was pushing just to stay alive. It wound up being an aeronautical research vehicle.

JamesG · 11-27-2012, 03:30 PM

That's very hind-sighty. It wasn't the reason/justification for either the project or it's cancellation at the time.

Klay · 11-27-2012, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesG

That's very hind-sighty. It wasn't the reason/justification for either the project or it's cancellation at the time.

If I recall, it was the increasing effectiveness of surface to air missiles which mandated a new strategy of low-altitude ingress to targets. The XB-70 just wouldn't have been fast and high enough.

ttpete · 11-27-2012, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klay

If I recall, it was the increasing effectiveness of surface to air missiles which mandated a new strategy of low-altitude ingress to targets. The XB-70 just wouldn't have been fast and high enough.

Which is essentially what I said. Technology overtook it. I think it was Curtis LeMay's last gasp.

Klay · 11-27-2012, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ttpete

Which is essentially what I said. Technology overtook it. I think it was Curtis LeMay's last gasp.

The ghost of Curtis LeMay lived on during Viet Nam when the brass insisted on sending fighter bombers in formation over the same ingress and egress to the target over repeated missions without altering tactics to respond to the enemy. Ever read Thud Ridge?

Oh, and yes, I didn't read everything ttpete wrote.

BillsR100 · 11-27-2012, 07:26 PM

Flying high and fast was also obsoleted (is that a word?) with the advent of long range stand off weapons (think cruise missiles) The B52 became the choice simply as a delivery vehicle capable of carrying a much wider variety of weapons to within range of the targets. Also while I'm on a roll, the B1 was (is) very limited in that it could not carry external weapons and also go supersonic. The B1 was hardly used in strategic mission planning due to it's limited numbers and also it's limited versatility. So... the B52 remains the main stay in the air breathing portion of the triad. The B2 is the new B52 in that it is able to penetrate deeper without relying on speed, although it cannot carry external weapons without greatly increasing it's radar cross section.
It's all just a big bunch of trade offs, In a nut shell, in a strategic conflict the B52 is the one, in a theater conflict, the B2 is the one.

11-26-2012, 08:31 PM	#3856
Trixie No, not that Trixie Joined: Jul 2001 Location: Central MA Oddometer: 3,358	That's all in the hangar on-base. Worth the trip. __________________ ---------------------------------------------------- One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. - Plato The important thing is this: To be able at any moment to sacrifice what we are for who we could become! Charles Dubois

11-26-2012, 10:02 PM	#3857
Renner combustophile Joined: Jul 2007 Location: sunny SoCal Oddometer: 1,558	ever wonder where they parked Tacit Blue? remarkably few years separate these two designs several former Air Force 1 planes are in the same on-base space. __________________ "If you want to fix it with a rock, you have to stick to stone-age technology" -Anton "...solving the latest crisis that is preventing my Airhead from taking me to the bar." -Beater-

11-26-2012, 10:21 PM	#3858
Klay plainsman Joined: Nov 2005 Location: out in the great wide open Oddometer: 89,056	Holy smokes, the hardware in there! Is that a P-59? __________________ _______

11-27-2012, 08:48 AM	#3859
Motorfiets Beastly Adventurer Joined: Oct 2007 Location: North of Jack Daniel's, South of Country Music Oddometer: 2,968	what is the massive propped jet? found it.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-84H cool as hell read Motorfiets screwed with this post 11-27-2012 at 08:54 AM

11-27-2012, 08:59 AM	#3861
JamesG Beastly Adventurer Joined: Dec 2006 Location: Columbus, GA Oddometer: 10,034	It's on my list of places to go. I will probably get kicked out for crossing over the barrier and fondling/drooling on the exhibits. __________________ I am a conservative, not a Republican. There is a difference.

11-27-2012, 09:00 AM	#3862
I_FLY_LOW Beastly Adventurer Joined: Jan 2007 Location: Baton Rouge, LA Oddometer: 2,212	That XB-70 was another plane, way ahead of it's time. Shame it never made it to full production.

11-27-2012, 03:30 PM	#3866
JamesG Beastly Adventurer Joined: Dec 2006 Location: Columbus, GA Oddometer: 10,034	That's very hind-sighty. It wasn't the reason/justification for either the project or it's cancellation at the time. __________________ I am a conservative, not a Republican. There is a difference.

11-27-2012, 07:26 PM	#3870
BillsR100 Beastly Adventurer Joined: Nov 2006 Location: Edmond, Oklahoma Oddometer: 2,114	Flying high and fast was also obsoleted (is that a word?) with the advent of long range stand off weapons (think cruise missiles) The B52 became the choice simply as a delivery vehicle capable of carrying a much wider variety of weapons to within range of the targets. Also while I'm on a roll, the B1 was (is) very limited in that it could not carry external weapons and also go supersonic. The B1 was hardly used in strategic mission planning due to it's limited numbers and also it's limited versatility. So... the B52 remains the main stay in the air breathing portion of the triad. The B2 is the new B52 in that it is able to penetrate deeper without relying on speed, although it cannot carry external weapons without greatly increasing it's radar cross section. It's all just a big bunch of trade offs, In a nut shell, in a strategic conflict the B52 is the one, in a theater conflict, the B2 is the one.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread: