News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The XB-70 (2019) by gedy on Tuesday February 25, 2025 @02:16PM (#43176065)
I agree with you, but the issue afaik is that B-52 was more flexible whereas the B-70 was basically single purpose and basically obsoleted by ICBMs.

B-52s were able to pivot to new roles so have stayed around.

I'm humbled for us laughing at the one guy assigned to B-52 maintenance role when was in USAF training over 30 years ago "That old thing? Ha!". Who would have guessed..

Re:The XB-70 (2019) by runjake on Tuesday February 25, 2025 @02:27PM (#43176184)
> I'm humbled for us laughing at the one guy assigned to B-52 maintenance role when was in USAF training over 30 years ago "That old thing? Ha!".

That guy may have been me. I was pretty bummed, but quickly learned about its awesomeness (avionics-wise, anyway).

Re:The XB-70 (2019) by gedy on Tuesday February 25, 2025 @02:31PM (#43176231)
Ha, at Lowry in 1993?
Re:The XB-70 (2019) by runjake on Tuesday February 25, 2025 @02:52PM (#43176462)
Yep, up until January 1993 or so.

"SRAM Howell" ring a bell?

Re:The XB-70 (2019) by gedy on Tuesday February 25, 2025 @03:12PM (#43176724)
Ah I got there 1/93 so may have missed. I remember going to "fundies", getting called "pinger", etc. Good times.
Re:The XB-70 (2019) by runjake on Tuesday February 25, 2025 @04:18PM (#43177538)
Nobody can understand our fear of washing out and moving to the other side of the dorm to become a food handler and serving your former avionics classmates breakfast. This happened a lot while I was there.
Re:The XB-70 (2019) by gedy on Tuesday February 25, 2025 @04:33PM (#43177741)
Lol, I forgot all about that - though there were some cute chicks over there. I remember chatting with one about her upcoming French Toast test :-)
Re:The XB-70 (2019) by chiph on Tuesday February 25, 2025 @05:13PM (#43178234)
You may find this amusing then. I was at Travis for a day (from McClellan) and I had time to stop by their museum. They had a G model on display and there was an older gentleman with a child looking at it. "What kind of plane is this, grandpa?" "I'm not sure - I think it's a cargo plane"

I had a really tough time resisting the urge to tell them the "cargo" came out the bottom.

Re:The XB-70 (2019) by loloquwowndueo on Tuesday February 25, 2025 @03:10PM (#43176704)
What killed the xb-70 was the advent of better air to air missiles that nullified its high-altitude high-speed flight advantage.

ICBMs also render other kinds of bombers obsolete and yet b52 and tu-95 are still around.

Re:The XB-70 (2019) by runjake on Tuesday February 25, 2025 @04:04PM (#43177369)
From what I know, what actually killed the XB-70 was ICBM advancements.

The B-52 survived by becoming a low altitude bomber and an excellent, cheap nuclear-capable cruise missile delivery platform that was comparatively cheap to operate at the same level of effectiveness as the B1-B and B-2A for similar roles.

Russia more or less mirrored this with the Tu-95.

Re:The XB-70 (2019) by justinator on Tuesday February 25, 2025 @07:08PM (#43179117)
The B52 was never a low altitude bomber, you're thinking of the B1A, which was to be a high altitude, super sonic bomber but SAM missile tech advanced faster than the development of the bomber could happen, and it was canned, before being resurrected as a subsonic, low altitude bomber (the B1B). The XB-70 couldn't make that switch because it was a ridiculous design (for starters).

The B52 role was to have wings (and nuclear bombs) in the air constantly over the arctic to act as a deterrent. The only way that idea could attempt to survive out of the 50's is if they (or one of them) were < hour from a target at all times. They're huge, they flew slow, and their flight path didn't change much. The whole multi-decade mission was a huge waste of money; a stage drama.

The B52 also became a heavy bomber in Vietnam, with incredibly heavy loses. The Air Force in general in Vietnam was a shit show -- observe the F4.

It's only when you have air superiority can you dredge up a B52 to deliver a payload.

These are not winning strategies in a war that would start today by an adversary like China. We're going to be caught with our pants down with B52s as the stains on our underwear.

Re:The XB-70 (2019) by 15155 on Wednesday February 26, 2025 @07:09AM (#43182932)
> We're going to be caught with our pants down with B52s as the stains on our underwear.

Meanwhile: their entire imported food and oil supply has been easily blockaded by ancient, conventional systems.

Re:The XB-70 (2019) by euroderf on Wednesday February 26, 2025 @10:18AM (#43184450)
> observe the F4

Isn't there a truism that the F4 demonstrates that with big enough engines, you can get any lump of junk up into the air ?

Re:The XB-70 (2019) by lazide on Wednesday February 26, 2025 @12:16PM (#43185730)
The way I heard it, ‘with enough power, even a brick will fly’
Re:The XB-70 (2019) by Spooky23 on Wednesday February 26, 2025 @11:01AM (#43184896)
The Vietnam era is totally different. LeMay and Powers were sociopaths whose goal was to nuke things and intercept things that would nuke the US. Survivability wasn’t really a consideration - assuming you finished nuking the Soviets, there would be nothing to return to.

The needs of Vietnam required different tactics, and the airmen paid in blood for the myopic vision of the leaders.

Re:The XB-70 (2019) by lazide on Wednesday February 26, 2025 @02:38AM (#43181582)
Eh, the B52 has survived because it is amazing at being a bomb/missle/etc. dumptruck, and doesn’t have anything fancy which is expensive to maintain or particularly brittle.

Even the airframes are mostly still alive 50+ years later, which is mind blowing on aircraft. They have made a new B52 since ‘62 but they keep on trucking.

It isn’t super fast (the B1 is that), or stealthy (B2 or B21), or sexy (B1), or nimble (any of the generations of fighter bombers that have come and gone). It doesn’t fly particularly low. Or particularly high.

But god damn can it carry and drop absolutely massive quantities of whatever type of ordnance you want, pretty much anywhere you want on the globe, and do it over and over and over and over again. 70,000 lbs worth

The 737 is still around for pretty much the same reasons.

Any alternative ends up being less effective at the same tasks, or more niche/expensive.

They’re basically the alligators or horseshoe crabs of the airplane world. Or the M2 heavy machine gun. Or the Cessna 182 or Robinson R22 of the GA world.

Re:The XB-70 (2019) by zabzonk on Wednesday February 26, 2025 @08:06AM (#43183284)
Or the Avro Vulcan - now sadly relagated to a single example that can only taxi a bit.
Re:The XB-70 (2019) by psunavy03 on Tuesday February 25, 2025 @05:52PM (#43178598)
> ICBMs also render other kinds of bombers obsolete and yet b52 and tu-95 are still around.

This has been proven utterly false since the 1960s, because a) you can't recall an ICBM after firing it, b) you can't retarget an ICBM after firing it, and c) there's no reliable way to tell nuke warheads from conventional ones, meaning every one you launch has to be assumed to have a nuclear payload, with all the world-ending consequences that entails.

The Air Force resurrected this zombie idea (conventional ICBMs) in the 2000s and called it Prompt Global Strike, only to can it for the obvious reasons.

Re:The XB-70 (2019) by ethbr1 on Wednesday February 26, 2025 @12:21AM (#43180884)
We also live in a world where Russia launches conventionally armed IRBMs against their neighbor.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oreshnik_(missile)#First_ope...

Re:The XB-70 (2019) by varjag on Wednesday February 26, 2025 @04:22AM (#43182153)
It was not conventionally armed. It had dummy training warheads, conventional payloads for it are not even being developed. There are hardly any targets for which lobbing high explosive with an ICBM is cost effective.
Re:The XB-70 (2019) by ethbr1 on Wednesday February 26, 2025 @06:48AM (#43182820)
> There are hardly any targets for which lobbing high explosive with an ICBM is cost effective.

Unless your neighbor has effective air defenses and you want to make a political point...