America’s Junk Weapons

[rightwinger]

This is an excellent essay on Russian and American weapons development.

Along with the Vietnam War and Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), McNamara bequeathed the country the habit of canceling weapons systems because we could.

The two major victims were the B-70 Valkyrie and the GAM-87 Skybolt missile.

The B-70 was a remarkable aircraft, the sole example of a type flown only at that time and never since. Looking more like something out of “Trek” than an airplane designed in the 1950s, the B-70 was an eight-engine behemoth capable of cruising at 2,000 mph at an altitude of over 70,000 feet. And yet this beast of a machine was one of the most graceful airplanes ever designed, looking like a gigantic swan evolved in some biosphere far advanced over ours.

Much more of this interesting article @ https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/07/americas_junk_weapons.html

Beautiful aircraft

Doesn’t mean it was cost effective or practical in military applications
Many proposed aircraft have not made it to production

 

[Mushroom]

North American XP-82 Twin Mustang 44-83887 on test flight over Sierras, 1945 The 1st American aircraft to get an air-t-air victory in Korea.

The F-82, an interesting interim aircraft design.

When the US realized the Soviets were making B-29 clones, they realized that their former ally now had a large heavy bomber of their own. So this strange aircraft (designed to escort bombers in the invasion of Japan) was retained after the war. And if a conflict ever started, they knew US bombers would need fighter escorts of their own. The development of jets was long and slow, and this fit the gap of a long range fighter until they could be fielded.

These really were interesting. With a range of over 5,200 miles, these could fly from London to Moscow, linger for up to 30 minutes, then return without refueling. And both cockpits were fully functional, so the pilots could take turns controlling the aircraft to reduce fatigue.

And their ordinance "off the shelf" was 6 .50 machine guns, with hardpoints for bombs and rockets. And it still holds many records for a production aircraft (which excludes those like the Rutan Voyager). It still holds the record for the longest unrefueled flight by a piston aircraft, as well as the only piston powered aircraft to fly from Hawaii to New York without landing (5,051 miles).

 

[Muhammed]

This is an excellent essay on Russian and American weapons development.

Along with the Vietnam War and Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), McNamara bequeathed the country the habit of canceling weapons systems because we could.

Actually, they were cancelled because other technologies had largely made them obsolete.

Once the Polaris SLBM missile was developed, weapons like the Valkyrie and Skybolt were pretty much obsolete. Both programs were started before the Polaris was put into service, and once it did they were no longer needed.

And the thought that the B-70 could fly higher and faster than Soviet missiles was shown to be no longer accurate in 1960 when they shot down one of our U-2 spy planes. Then shot down another one in 1962.

So yea, cancelling them was the right decision I think. Revolutionary at the time they were first proposed, already obsolete before they would have been put into real service.

except SR71 showed you could simply fly away from missiles with enough speed.

Spy satellites made the SR-71 obsolete.

 

[westwall]

Would the XB70 have helped us win LBJ's war? I think not. McNamara was right.

mcnamara was an ass, and a fool. How he got his job I have no idea. He was the quintessential "bean counter" and bean counters cost us more lives in Vietnam than any other cause save the enemy themselves.

 

[westwall]

This is an excellent essay on Russian and American weapons development.

Along with the Vietnam War and Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), McNamara bequeathed the country the habit of canceling weapons systems because we could.

Actually, they were cancelled because other technologies had largely made them obsolete.

Once the Polaris SLBM missile was developed, weapons like the Valkyrie and Skybolt were pretty much obsolete. Both programs were started before the Polaris was put into service, and once it did they were no longer needed.

And the thought that the B-70 could fly higher and faster than Soviet missiles was shown to be no longer accurate in 1960 when they shot down one of our U-2 spy planes. Then shot down another one in 1962.

So yea, cancelling them was the right decision I think. Revolutionary at the time they were first proposed, already obsolete before they would have been put into real service.

except SR71 showed you could simply fly away from missiles with enough speed.

Spy satellites made the SR-71 obsolete.

Not entirely. There are still missions where no other platform can do the same job as the SR-71.

 

[westwall]

except SR71 showed you could simply fly away from missiles with enough speed.

B-70 speed: MACH 3
SR-71 speed: MACH 3.3+

B-70 service ceiling: 77,000 feet
SR-71 service ceiling: 85,000+ feet

And remember, the data for the SR-71 is still approximated. The actual data is still classified to this day.

BTW, the missile that shot down the U-2s? The S-75 Davina (SA-2 GUIDELINE).

S-75 speed: MACH 3.5
S-75 service ceiling: 82,000 feet

The B-70 could not fly high enough to avoid the GUIDELINE, the SR-71 could.

And you can not "fly away" if the missile is launched in front of you. That is how they brought down the U-2. Surface to air missiles are not fired at an aircraft after or as it passes over, they are fired into their path in front of them.

The B-70 had a high "dash speed" but the SR-71's speed was a constant. It CRUISED at mach 3.17! Thus the Soviets had little time to acquire, track, and launch. They tried. No one knows how many thousands of missiles were fired at the SR-71s as they overflew the Soviet Union and China.

 

[Manonthestreet]

U2 is a pig compared to the other 2.......btw service ceiling was 77,000 pray tell why do we need a B1 or B2....even they would have to rely on standoff off weapons against major power

Completely different flight profile and tactics.

The B-70 was to have been a conventional Strategic Bomber of the era. Flying high and fast, relying upon speed and surprise in addition to navigation to avoid enemies.

The B-1 was a penetration bomber. It was designed to fly high and fast, which is how it would make it's approach. Then it would change it's flight characteristics and profile, moving to a near ground altitude in an attempt to use terrain to avoid enemy positions at very low altitude.

The B-2 of course uses stealth to perform much of the same role. It also is a penetration bomber.

Trying to compare the B-70, B-1 and B-2 is like trying to compare the Ju-87, the G4M, and the SB2C. After all, all are "light bombers", so they all must be the same, right?

They aren't going to penetrate anything against near peer opponent. ..building B21 is even more waste.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

U2 is a pig compared to the other 2.......btw service ceiling was 77,000 pray tell why do we need a B1 or B2....even they would have to rely on standoff off weapons against major power

Completely different flight profile and tactics.

The B-70 was to have been a conventional Strategic Bomber of the era. Flying high and fast, relying upon speed and surprise in addition to navigation to avoid enemies.

The B-1 was a penetration bomber. It was designed to fly high and fast, which is how it would make it's approach. Then it would change it's flight characteristics and profile, moving to a near ground altitude in an attempt to use terrain to avoid enemy positions at very low altitude.

The B-2 of course uses stealth to perform much of the same role. It also is a penetration bomber.

Trying to compare the B-70, B-1 and B-2 is like trying to compare the Ju-87, the G4M, and the SB2C. After all, all are "light bombers", so they all must be the same, right?

They aren't going to penetrate anything against near peer opponent. ..building B21 is even more waste.

What made the making of the B-2 so expensive was the learning curve to build it. Unlike the F-22 and the F-35, the B-2 is extremely hard to pick up with all bands of Radar and Heat sensors. They cut no corners.

The B-21 is slightly smaller but the cost of the learning curve has already been paid for. The 2 billion per copy of the B-2 drops to right around 400 to 500 mil per copy for the B-21 and it can fly the same mission. Plus, the lessons learned from the F-35 also goes into it as well as the B-2. You have to understand,it isn't just the design of the stealth that makes the bird, it's also the tolerances. Right now, the only nation with the ability to do the tolerances to actually build a real Stealth AC is the United States. And that price was starting to be paid in the 1970s for the F-117 program and has continued. It peaked for the B-2, F-22 and the F-35. It's been paid in full. To the US, it's a mature technology but to the rest of the world, it's new. And it's price is staggering.

 

[Manonthestreet]

U2 is a pig compared to the other 2.......btw service ceiling was 77,000 pray tell why do we need a B1 or B2....even they would have to rely on standoff off weapons against major power

Completely different flight profile and tactics.

The B-70 was to have been a conventional Strategic Bomber of the era. Flying high and fast, relying upon speed and surprise in addition to navigation to avoid enemies.

The B-1 was a penetration bomber. It was designed to fly high and fast, which is how it would make it's approach. Then it would change it's flight characteristics and profile, moving to a near ground altitude in an attempt to use terrain to avoid enemy positions at very low altitude.

The B-2 of course uses stealth to perform much of the same role. It also is a penetration bomber.

Trying to compare the B-70, B-1 and B-2 is like trying to compare the Ju-87, the G4M, and the SB2C. After all, all are "light bombers", so they all must be the same, right?

They aren't going to penetrate anything against near peer opponent. ..building B21 is even more waste.

What made the making of the B-2 so expensive was the learning curve to build it. Unlike the F-22 and the F-35, the B-2 is extremely hard to pick up with all bands of Radar and Heat sensors. They cut no corners.

The B-21 is slightly smaller but the cost of the learning curve has already been paid for. The 2 billion per copy of the B-2 drops to right around 400 to 500 mil per copy for the B-21 and it can fly the same mission. Plus, the lessons learned from the F-35 also goes into it as well as the B-2. You have to understand,it isn't just the design of the stealth that makes the bird, it's also the tolerances. Right now, the only nation with the ability to do the tolerances to actually build a real Stealth AC is the United States. And that price was starting to be paid in the 1970s for the F-117 program and has continued. It peaked for the B-2, F-22 and the F-35. It's been paid in full. To the US, it's a mature technology but to the rest of the world, it's new. And it's price is staggering.

New radars are going to make stealth useless....not just Russians cracking it. War is speeding up. Need a long range ultra fast strike to roam Pacific for anti ship duty since your carrier strike is inadequate.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

U2 is a pig compared to the other 2.......btw service ceiling was 77,000 pray tell why do we need a B1 or B2....even they would have to rely on standoff off weapons against major power

Completely different flight profile and tactics.

The B-70 was to have been a conventional Strategic Bomber of the era. Flying high and fast, relying upon speed and surprise in addition to navigation to avoid enemies.

The B-1 was a penetration bomber. It was designed to fly high and fast, which is how it would make it's approach. Then it would change it's flight characteristics and profile, moving to a near ground altitude in an attempt to use terrain to avoid enemy positions at very low altitude.

The B-2 of course uses stealth to perform much of the same role. It also is a penetration bomber.

Trying to compare the B-70, B-1 and B-2 is like trying to compare the Ju-87, the G4M, and the SB2C. After all, all are "light bombers", so they all must be the same, right?

They aren't going to penetrate anything against near peer opponent. ..building B21 is even more waste.

What made the making of the B-2 so expensive was the learning curve to build it. Unlike the F-22 and the F-35, the B-2 is extremely hard to pick up with all bands of Radar and Heat sensors. They cut no corners.

The B-21 is slightly smaller but the cost of the learning curve has already been paid for. The 2 billion per copy of the B-2 drops to right around 400 to 500 mil per copy for the B-21 and it can fly the same mission. Plus, the lessons learned from the F-35 also goes into it as well as the B-2. You have to understand,it isn't just the design of the stealth that makes the bird, it's also the tolerances. Right now, the only nation with the ability to do the tolerances to actually build a real Stealth AC is the United States. And that price was starting to be paid in the 1970s for the F-117 program and has continued. It peaked for the B-2, F-22 and the F-35. It's been paid in full. To the US, it's a mature technology but to the rest of the world, it's new. And it's price is staggering.

New radars are going to make stealth useless....not just Russians cracking it. War is speeding up. Need a long range ultra fast strike to roam Pacific for anti ship duty since your carrier strike is inadequate.

Maybe in 2035 but not today. As it stands today, China has about nil chance of hitting a carrier. Their spiffy new carrier killer missile has so many hoops it has to jump through it just won't make it. I saw the list of things it has to have perfect to make the hit. It was an impossible list. If even one failed the missile would fail. Science Fiction only works in Science Fiction.

As for the Radar, unless they reinvent Radar, there are only so many bands of radar that can be used. A Fighter has only room to block or supress only X number of them. But a Bomber has the room to block or supress them all. The B-2 has a smaller cross section than even the F-22 has and the B-21 will have even a small on than that. Even in the low bands that can barely track the F-22 and F-35 but can't target them. As for IR, against the B-2 and the B-21, IR detectors are pretty well worthless. They started learning on the F-117 how to disapate the heat out the exhaust and the B-2 has little heat signature there. Like the B-2, the B-21, you will be defending with very short ranged radar and visual against it. This only works if you aren't it's target. If you are, you won't get the chance to defend at all.

For the High Seas, the Carrier is still King. Over the Land, the USAF is the King. Your Propoganda doesn't change that. The US is the ONLY one that can invade if it wants either China or Russia if it absolutely has to without going nuclear. Neither Russia or China or even both together has a tinker chance in hell of doing the same to the US. As a Mel Brooks Character once said, "It's Good to be the King".

 

[Manonthestreet]

Talk about proppo....you got no shot of invading China....madhaatter to the max Carrier strike is so short legged you need help big time. Building another nuke bomber is ridiculous.....especially if its slow as B2....you really are in the dark on tech advances.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Talk about proppo....you got no shot of invading China....madhaatter to the max Carrier strike is so short legged you need help big time. Building another nuke bomber is ridiculous.....especially if its slow as B2....you really are in the dark on tech advances.

 

[Mushroom]

New radars are going to make stealth useless....not just Russians cracking it. War is speeding up. Need a long range ultra fast strike to roam Pacific for anti ship duty since your carrier strike is inadequate.

Uh-huh, and exactly what "new RADAR" is going to accomplish this magic feat?

You are aware that actual RADAR itself has not really been significantly changed in over 40 years, are you not? Yes, they make improvements to them, but that is really the last time that there has been any major improvement of significance to military detection and tracking RADAR systems.

"Ultra fast strike to roam the Pacific"? What does that even mean?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

New radars are going to make stealth useless....not just Russians cracking it. War is speeding up. Need a long range ultra fast strike to roam Pacific for anti ship duty since your carrier strike is inadequate.

Uh-huh, and exactly what "new RADAR" is going to accomplish this magic feat?

You are aware that actual RADAR itself has not really been significantly changed in over 40 years, are you not? Yes, they make improvements to them, but that is really the last time that there has been any major improvement of significance to military detection and tracking RADAR systems.

"Ultra fast strike to roam the Pacific"? What does that even mean?

Higher band radars are shorter but more powerful but they are also the easiest to defeat. The lower down the frequency you go the longer the range but the power must be increased to use them. They also can be defeated. Until you reach the low refrequency band radars that have the longest range but require oodles of power. But the low band radars can track but they lack the ability to lock on.

In something the size of a fighter, they can only marginally defeat the low wave radar making the low wave radar able to pick them up right around 50 miles or 80km. This enables the enemy the ability to vector in their own fighters to that location. The bad news is, long ranged stand off weapons have a longer range than the affective range of the low band radar. While the low range radar will be able to get an initial track, the stand off weapon will fallow that beam in and destroy the radar site. And the fighters will not remain static and just move to another vector.

Bombers like the B-2 are large enough where they were designed to lessen the affects of even the low band radars. Meaning, they can get closer before detection. How close? I doubt the US is going to release that data any time soon. And, unlike the fighters, the IR detection is pretty well worthless against them. Their exhaust heat dissipation is pretty good to the point you will probably have a visual before you have an IR signature. In the end, it's going to be a visual fight and anyone playing that game is going to pay dearly getting there.

 

[Mushroom]

Maybe in 2035 but not today. As it stands today, China has about nil chance of hitting a carrier. Their spiffy new carrier killer missile has so many hoops it has to jump through it just won't make it. I saw the list of things it has to have perfect to make the hit. It was an impossible list. If even one failed the missile would fail. Science Fiction only works in Science Fiction.

The DF-21D? That is little but a crazy propaganda weapon. And the Chinese would be totally insane to even try to launch one of those at a US carrier.

Yes, the weapon has 0 chance of hitting a carrier. There is a reason nobody uses ballistic weapons against point targets, they lack the accuracy to do so.

And even worse, the DF-21D is based on the DF-21 series of missiles. And other than this one, each and every one of them is a 500kt nuclear weapon. And until the thing hits it's target, it is impossible to determine which one would be launched.

So how do you think the US Navy would react if it say a medium range ballistic nuclear missile heading towards it? They are going to react as if it is a nuke, if it is or not. And since it is "strongly believed" that every carrier task force has nukes of their own on board, that means the odds increase significantly that the US will react as if it is a nuke.

Never mind that the CEP of this missile is over 3 times the width of a carrier in the first place. That means even if the thing is stationary at anchor and not moving, there is only a 1 in 3 chance it could hit it. When the ship is actually moving at sea, you can give up ever hitting it.

As for the Radar, unless they reinvent Radar, there are only so many bands of radar that can be used.

Well, it is more than just bands. Probably the biggest advancement in RADAR since WWII was the Phased Array RADAR system, a key feature of such systems as the AEGIS system for the Navy, and PATRIOT for the Army.

 

[longknife]

We never know what other stuff is being dreamed up in super secret sites.

 

[Mushroom]

Higher band radars are shorter but more powerful but they are also the easiest to defeat. The lower down the frequency you go the longer the range but the power must be increased to use them. They also can be defeated. Until you reach the low refrequency band radars that have the longest range but require oodles of power. But the low band radars can track but they lack the ability to lock on.

But none of this is "new". Frequencies are chosen for a reason.

That is why OTH RADAR uses very long frequencies. They are good at seeing things at extreme ranges (and even things that should technically be "out of sight"), but they are almost impossible to use at closer ranges, and for vectoring any kinds of weapons.

Shorter frequencies are the choice for targeting and acquisition for that reason. Shorter range in general, but more accurate for this purpose.

And then there is the inverse issue of "pumping up the volume", and that is enemy detection. On average, the rule is generally that the enemy can detect a RADAR system at twice the distance that the RADAR can detect it. And it's range is ultimately a combination of it's power, and the horizon itself. Pump in more power, you are giving it's location away from a greater distance, making it easier to evade altogether.

And that actually does little good in defeating stealth. Most SAM sites actually do have the capability to detect stealth. It is just that the RADAR return means they have to be very close in order to do it with enough of a return to engage.

 

[Mushroom]

That is actually a rather shrewd analysis.

But I think it would be impossible for Japan to not get sucked in. Any attacks on US bases would inflict huge casualties to the Japanese civilian population, and they would have to react or loose face both overseas and to their own citizens.

And one thing it neglects to mention is the likelihood of the Philippines joining the US. This would provide yet another large land area to deploy US ships and air forces, making it harder to strike at all of them as they would be spread out even more.

And one thing a lot of people fail to realize is that this is no longer the WWII era. In such conflicts it is no longer needed to "invade and occupy" another nation. Simply to crush their will or ability to fight (Gulf War I), or to strike directly at eliminating the government itself (Panama, Gulf War II).

The US has not fought any kind of long wide spread war of total domination and control of another nation since 1950. But I can see the US conducting some amphibious strikes at key selected locations. If nothing else on the scale of large raids.

Like say in Southern China. Around Hong Kong, Hainan, and the Leizhou Peninsula for example. Hit an area, eliminate local defenses and maybe imprison local officials, then withdraw after putting in a "Provisional Government", maybe even one influence by Taiwan.

 

[harmonica]

I'm guessing the B-70 would've been like the B-58 failure= expensive to maintain /problems
6 vs 4 engines!

The project cost of $1.5 billion of the XB-70 only resulted in two finished prototypes.

$1.5 B!!????
Rise and downfall of the fastest nuclear bomber XB-70 Valkyrie » MiGFlug.com Blog

 

[DrainBamage]

The DF-21D? That is little but a crazy propaganda weapon. And the Chinese would be totally insane to even try to launch one of those at a US carrier.

Yes, the weapon has 0 chance of hitting a carrier. There is a reason nobody uses ballistic weapons against point targets, they lack the accuracy to do so.

And even worse, the DF-21D is based on the DF-21 series of missiles. And other than this one, each and every one of them is a 500kt nuclear weapon. And until the thing hits it's target, it is impossible to determine which one would be launched.

Indeed, sometimes I wonder if anyone who babbles about DF-21 even stops to think about the kill chain and how this alleged missile could possibly target something that moves.