It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An interesting Aircraft

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I normally never post on this site unless I see something interesting, so when I

was searching this airforce propulsion labratories website and I came across

an image of a jet that ive never seen before in my life. Well i found it quite

interesting and thought I should post it for the conpiracy world to see. Well this

photo looks pretty old but its amazing to see that the military had these types of

jets back in those days when we dont even see jets like this now days.



and heres the site where I got the image from:

www.pr.afrl.af.mil...

[edit on 30-10-2006 by Trinity2492]




posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   
I've seen that plane a few times in pictures, I think it was
called snowbird, though I'm not sure.

I believe it was an experimental bomber design, not sure
about that either, I'm going off memory from quite a bit
of time ago.

Was definately cool looking.



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Thats the XB-70 valkyrie bomber....the one that the B-52 should of been beaten into production and use...but got scrapped after a couple of deaths during testing....


A high mach 3 + monster... a beauty and a sad day when they scrapped it



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   
The Valkyrie was a Mach 3+ bomber concieved in the 50's. Two aircraft flew during the 60's, but I think one was destroyed when an F-104 flying escort crashed into it. I can't remember what happened with the other.

It's an awesome aircraft. I believe those massive canards are there to dampen out turbelunce as the airplane was designed to fly at very low-altitiudes to get under the Soviet radar nets. It's a pity it never went into service.

btw, the Y-12, the original version of the SR-71 Blackbird, was designed in the 50's and it went into service in the sixties. The B-70 is hardly a one-of-a-kind major technoligical advancement for that time.



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   
That,ladies and gentleman is one of my favorite aircraft of all time. The XB-70 VALKYRIE. I first saw this plane when my uncle would bring home aviation week magazines from the library.


The North American XB-70 "Valkyrie" was conceived for the Strategic Air Command in the 1950s as a high-altitude bomber that could fly three times the speed of sound (Mach 3). Two aircraft were built and flew test flights in the 1960s.


XB-70 Valkyrie


On June 8, 1966, however, it crashed following a mid-air collision with an F-104 that occurred while the aircraft were flying in close formation for an ill-conceived photo shoot at the behest of General Electric. NASA Chief Test Pilot Joe Walker, piloting the F-104, and Carl Cross, copilot aboard the XB-70, were both killed in the crash, while Al White, the XB-70's pilot, successfully ejected. The exact cause of the collision is still debated.


The valkyrie was intended to be escorted by a new fighter similar in design to the valkyrie itself.


The North American Aviation XF-108 Rapier was a proposed design for a long-range, high-speed interceptor aircraft to defend the United States and Canada from supersonic Soviet bombers.


Rapier

A shame really that it wasnt put into production. That plane just looks futuristic even today.I just wish we had more radical ideas/proposals for new aircraft today.



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   
ah,seems i was beaten to the punch



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Agreed Valkryie probably the sexiest U.S. aircraft ever made imo...one other reason for non-production, was it's mission was made obsolete by the enemy it was designed to destroy. Russian missile technology finally, at least at that time caught up with American bomber tehnology...no reason to build an expensive duck (target) when the B-52 could perform the same mission at a lower cost.



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by deadbang
... was it's mission was made obsolete by the enemy it was designed to destroy. Russian missile technology finally, at least at that time caught up with American bomber tehnology...no reason to build an expensive duck (target)...


Not really. Russian missile technology wasn't able to catch up with the SR-71 for the next 20+ years (ever really, as none were shot down) - and that was an older design that wasn't that much faster (only .2 or .3 mach greater).



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Imagine what it could do with todays technology


You could call it B4 or B5



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   
The only aircraft that made it to production due to this program was the Mig-25 Foxbat which was developed as a counter to this awesome bomber.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by crusader97

Originally posted by deadbang
... was it's mission was made obsolete by the enemy it was designed to destroy. Russian missile technology finally, at least at that time caught up with American bomber tehnology...no reason to build an expensive duck (target)...


Not really. Russian missile technology wasn't able to catch up with the SR-71 for the next 20+ years (ever really, as none were shot down) - and that was an older design that wasn't that much faster (only .2 or .3 mach greater).



No SR-71 ever made a direct penetration over russia, it is comparing oranges and apples.

It is much harder to engage a target passing side to side far infront of the SAM site, than it is to engage a target passing directly over the SAM site.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedBaron
The only aircraft that made it to production due to this program was the Mig-25 Foxbat which was developed as a counter to this awesome bomber.


Thats just a myth I'm afraid. Development of the MiG 25 began in 1959, long before either the B-70 or SR-71 were a known threat to Russia as both types were in very early development at the time. The MiG 25 was just a logical continuation of Russia's ongoing programme to develop the fastest, highest flying interceptors it was possible to make, in order to intercept whatever happened to come along.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
No SR-71 ever made a direct penetration over russia, it is comparing oranges and apples.

It is much harder to engage a target passing side to side far infront of the SAM site, than it is to engage a target passing directly over the SAM site.


I'm sorry - Soviet Union. Understandably recon birds and bombers fly different profiles, but who's going to send either directly over a SAM site?



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   
I think one of the draw backs at the time which contributed to its demise was the challenge of dropping bombs at mach 3 and high altitude. Though with gps guided munitions of today, I think this bomber could excel; it could 'pitch' bombs and turn away and be far away, targeting it next target, before the bomb even hit the first.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   
This plane has a resemblance to the Avro Arrow to my eyes. And they wanted to develop this as a long range bomber?? They cancelled the Arrow because they said that missiles was the way to go to deal with the Russians. So they build this plane which is a rip off of the Arrow and deny the missile B/S we were sold?



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
This plane has a resemblance to the Avro Arrow to my eyes. And they wanted to develop this as a long range bomber?? They cancelled the Arrow because they said that missiles was the way to go to deal with the Russians. So they build this plane which is a rip off of the Arrow and deny the missile B/S we were sold?


If you actually think the XB-70 was a ripoff of the Arrow, you need to learn more about both.



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
This plane has a resemblance to the Avro Arrow to my eyes. And they wanted to develop this as a long range bomber?? They cancelled the Arrow because they said that missiles was the way to go to deal with the Russians. So they build this plane which is a rip off of the Arrow and deny the missile B/S we were sold?


The Arrow project probably had a bearing on the XB-70. Canada's Avro Aviation explored the concept of delta wings for supersonic stability (which the Americans were having trouble with. Example: Super Sabre). As soon as our secret got out (which wasn't much of a secret) the Americans were one of the first to grab the opportunity. The XB-70 was more efficient than the Arrow as it was capable of using compression lift (which is why the wingtips could bend downwards by up to 60 degrees). The X-108 was a natural offshoot of the XB-70.

It is, however, a shame that these projects did not pan out as they would likely have influenced the way air force is excercised today. Instead of huge attacks with tons of bombs (B-52 Buff, B-2 Spirit) we would likely be using aircraft more like the B-1 Lancer. It does disappoint me because although the B-52 and the B-2 are capable of inflicting mass damage (don't get me wrong, I love the Buff), it just seems better to me to have an aircraft capable of making swift entry, quick deployment, and fast getaway. I just like surgical strikes, I guess. But that's just me.

Begin flinging tomatoes and rotten vegetables.


Just kidding. No flak please.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0
It is, however, a shame that these projects did not pan out as they would likely have influenced the way air force is excercised today. Instead of huge attacks with tons of bombs (B-52 Buff, B-2 Spirit) we would likely be using aircraft more like the B-1 Lancer. It does disappoint me because although the B-52 and the B-2 are capable of inflicting mass damage (don't get me wrong, I love the Buff), it just seems better to me to have an aircraft capable of making swift entry, quick deployment, and fast getaway. I just like surgical strikes, I guess. But that's just me.

Begin flinging tomatoes and rotten vegetables.


Just kidding. No flak please.


I don't know how to upload a tomatoe!


Seriously, You raise a good point about the stratagy behind strategic bombing! There are two main schools of thought on bombing right now: Speed and Stealth.

The idea is that bombers can either survive by flying very fast or by sneaking in and out unseen! The idea of using fast planes that can get in and out quickly has a lot of merit in my mind. Especially when you talk about time -critical targets. I'm very much into stealth, but I'll be the first to admit that sometimes there's just NO replacement for the ability to deliver a swift, hard blow to the enemy's gut when he's not expectiong you.

When it comes to putting an enemy in his place, there's nothing like a swift, hard kick in the ass, to remind him that he doesn't have the world to himself!

Tim



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01

Originally posted by Darkpr0
It is, however, a shame that these projects did not pan out as they would likely have influenced the way air force is excercised today. Instead of huge attacks with tons of bombs (B-52 Buff, B-2 Spirit) we would likely be using aircraft more like the B-1 Lancer. It does disappoint me because although the B-52 and the B-2 are capable of inflicting mass damage (don't get me wrong, I love the Buff), it just seems better to me to have an aircraft capable of making swift entry, quick deployment, and fast getaway. I just like surgical strikes, I guess. But that's just me.

Begin flinging tomatoes and rotten vegetables.


Just kidding. No flak please.


I don't know how to upload a tomatoe!


Seriously, You raise a good point about the stratagy behind strategic bombing! There are two main schools of thought on bombing right now: Speed and Stealth.

The idea is that bombers can either survive by flying very fast or by sneaking in and out unseen! The idea of using fast planes that can get in and out quickly has a lot of merit in my mind. Especially when you talk about time -critical targets. I'm very much into stealth, but I'll be the first to admit that sometimes there's just NO replacement for the ability to deliver a swift, hard blow to the enemy's gut when he's not expectiong you.

When it comes to putting an enemy in his place, there's nothing like a swift, hard kick in the ass, to remind him that he doesn't have the world to himself!

Tim


I agree. Aren't we overdue for a new supersonic bomber? The B-1 is one of my fav's,but i do think its time for.....an upgrade. Still use the Lancer,but somethin like the f-22,speed+stealth.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join