posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 12:28 PM
Originally posted by Zaphod58
Of course it couldn't have flown over the USSR with impunity. Nothing could have. But it would have had a much higher survival rate than anything
else would have.
Much higher than far less than non is not in my opinion worth so much effort when that funds could have been directed into sattelites waiting on
launchpads for crisis situations. Maybe they were using all the rockets for the secret moon base, the Russians had plenty to spare after all, so i
just don't know what to think.
As for shelving the B-58, you apparently haven't bothered to read anything about all the MAJOR problems the B-58 had.
As if the first mach two strategic bomber you build is not going to experience problems.
Show me the high tech program that is not experience
problems? Fact is they were doing something very complex and they had solved or resolved all issues some years before the entire remaining fleet were
just scrapped. The USSR were very happy with this turn of events and the times were just getting better for them.
It was a great idea, but when they tried to implement it, it turned into a monster.
But the B-2's are still flying...
Meanwhile, dissatisfaction with the B-58 program grew. The correction of obvious combat deficiencies was slow, and it seemed almost certain
that early inventory aircraft would be short of components and would have no high frequency radio or identification equipment. Some SAC officials
were beginning to think that 2 wings of B-58s would be plenty since the aircraft would require greater tanker support than the B-52s. Also, the
B-58s would not be able to fly at low level without extensive and costly modifications. Others at SAC wanted more B-58s, having faith in the
follow-on B-58B that could be expected to materialize after production of the first 105 B-58As (test-aircraft included).
In the end the airforce were perfectly happy with what they got and they politicians had to destroy this system as well as the ABM defenses that had
been deployed all over the US. I can go on with the list but if you check you will find a pattern.. Why did they , after spending the maximum amount
possible, continue a program that resulted in the F-111 that were not obviously superior and still more than twice as expensive as a B-52? What is the
logic behind scraping a fully completely fleet of mach two strategic bombers only to late accept the troubled F-111's into the same role?
Could they have wasted US taxpayer funds any more efficiently?
The report also noted that SAC pilots had verified the B-58's good handling characteristics, but pilot training and high proficiency were
necessary. In addition, maintenance and control personnel should be highly skilled since those areas could greatly affect B-58 operations.
Those are just a FEW of the B-58 problems.
So they were in fact fact resolving the issues and presuming that the USAF could at that time find plenty of 'proficient' people i am not sure why
anyone can argue that there was in 1970 any reason to scrape the reaming 90 odd aircraft.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
And that pretty much sums up the B-58 in a nutshell. "IF". It was a good idea, and not a bad design IF they had worked out the bugs.
They did work out the bugs and it's not like the F-111 did not have teething problems of it's own obviously substansially benefiting from the steep
learning curve of the B-58 series.
And actually for the record attempt there were THREE aircraft. Two were going to go for the Tokyo-London record, and one the Tokyo-Chicago
record. Around the time of their refueling at Anchorage they found out that the other aircraft on the London attempt had a left side spike problem
and had to abort. It used the J-79 engine with a similar inlet spike as the SR-71.
Not sure how this invalidates all those performance records that were in fact set.
I can post plenty of sources but i will presume that you read at least a few articles to find these 'flaws' and are thus quite aware of all the
evidence to the contrary.