4 ms·

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

by gedy 2y ago

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..

runjake 2y ago
> 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).
- gedy 2y ago
  Ha, at Lowry in 1993?
  - runjake 2y ago
    Yep, up until January 1993 or so. "SRAM Howell" ring a bell?
    - gedy 2y ago
      Ah I got there 1/93 so may have missed. I remember going to "fundies", getting called "pinger", etc. Good times.
      - runjake 2y ago
        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.
        gedy 2y ago
        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 :-)
- chiph 2y ago
  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.
loloquwowndueo 2y ago
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.
- runjake 2y ago
  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.
  - justinator 2y ago
    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.
    - 15155 2y ago
      > 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.

by gedy 2y ago

runjake 2y ago

> 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).

gedy 2y ago
Ha, at Lowry in 1993?
- runjake 2y ago
  Yep, up until January 1993 or so. "SRAM Howell" ring a bell?
  - gedy 2y ago
    Ah I got there 1/93 so may have missed. I remember going to "fundies", getting called "pinger", etc. Good times.
    - runjake 2y ago
      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.
      - gedy 2y ago
        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 :-)
chiph 2y ago
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.

loloquwowndueo 2y ago

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.

runjake 2y ago
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.
- justinator 2y ago
  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.
  - 15155 2y ago
    > 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.