Convair Hustler's evolutions, part III: the B-58D

[archipeppe]

Long range interceptor for ADC. Two seats and two engines (J-58 with A/B) smaller version of B-58C. Equipped with radar and missiles (perhaps Genie and Falcon).

 

[archipeppe]

As additional note: to develop such drawing I have utilized, as reference, the Jay Miller's book about B-58 (Aerofax publish.), where at page 145 it is a clear 3-views of the B-58D/E version.

 

[Michel Van]

Again glory artwork


on missile question (Genie or Falcon) it would make sense to equip the B-58D with Nuclear anti aircraft missile.

 

[archipeppe]

Again glory artwork


on missile question (Genie or Falcon) it would make sense to equip the B-58D with Nuclear anti aircraft missile.

Thanks again Michel, regardind the missile question perhaps Orionblamblam (Scott for friends...) would have the right answer. I guess that if F-101B or F-106 would carry Genie it would make more sense that B-58D would also carry it, especially if it could carry 4 Genie or a combination of Genie/Falcon. But this is IMHO...

 

[SOC]

It appears the interceptor variant was offered to TAC, not ADC, as it was a multi-mission platform. I think that rules out the Genie. Falcon is possible, but at the time it was also an ADC-only weapon, so maybe they were going with the AIM-7?

 

[unclejim]

Now this one I can model. Thanks.

 

[archipeppe]

It appears the interceptor variant was offered to TAC, not ADC, as it was a multi-mission platform. I think that rules out the Genie. Falcon is possible, but at the time it was also an ADC-only weapon, so maybe they were going with the AIM-7?

Intersting... but Jay Miller in his book has a caption that states "Long Range Interceptor" for B-58D, so would it make sense for a TAC aircraft?
Or it would fit better to an ADC's one?

Taking into account that the B-58D could carry a huge radar with a lot of payload under its belly, it seems more logical to assign such machine to ADC rather than other USAF entities.

 

[SOC]

P. 89: "B-58C...long-range interceptor in a Tactical Air Command environment."

P. 145: "B-58D/E Long Range Interceptor/Tactical Bomber"

Adding a tactical bombing role to the B-58D/E (no idea what the differences were between the two) leads me to believe that they still looked at TAC as the end user. Plus, the radar wasn't all that large. They had to really tweak the nose to get the AN/ASG-18's 40 inch antenna into Snoopy, THAT was a huge radar!

 

[Grey Havoc]

P. 89: "B-58C...long-range interceptor in a Tactical Air Command environment."

Stand off interceptor with long range missiles, similar in some respects to the Missileer, but with a supersonic capability? Perhaps planned for long endurance at subsonic/transonic regimes?

 

[archipeppe]

P. 89: "B-58C...long-range interceptor in a Tactical Air Command environment."

P. 145: "B-58D/E Long Range Interceptor/Tactical Bomber"

Other sources reports different use for B-58C, that seems to indicate more a bomber rather than an interceptor. For example Wikipedia quotes:

"B-58C: Unbuilt version. Enlarged version with more fuel and 32,500 lbf (145 kN) J58, the same engine used on the Lockheed SR-71. Design studies were conducted with two and four engine designs, the C model had an estimated top speed approaching Mach 3, a supersonic cruise capability of approximately Mach 2, and a service ceiling of about 70,000 ft ( m) along with the capability of carrying conventional bombs. Convair estimated maximum range at 5,200 nautical miles(6,000 mi;9,600 km). The B-58C was proposed as a lower cost alternative to the North American XB-70. As enemy defenses against high-speed, high-altitude penetration bombers improved, the value of the B-58C diminished and the program was cancelled in early 1961.[25] "

 

[SOC]

The source for that, even though it's the USAF Museum, is questionable:

"The B-58C was proposed as a lower cost alternative to the North American XB-70 or as a medium bomber to fill the gap between the XB-70 and the XF-108 Rapier Mach 3 fighter (proposal)."

Fill the gap between the B-70 and F-108? What gap? The F-108 wasn't bombing anything.

Following standard procedure, Wikipedia ignores this bit:

"Convair estimated maximum range at 5,200 nautical miles, but the USAF disputed this figure as a gross exaggeration."

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2690

 

[GeorgeA]

Remember, Convair was desperately looking for a follow-on contract in this period and was probably throwing everything against the wall to see what might stick. It's likely that they were pitching the same airframe for different missions to different user commands. I suspect the presentation would have said "TAC interceptor" or "Coast Guard bomber" if that's what the customer was asking for.

 

[Johnbr]

https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-58-dev.htm

 

[Johnbr]

https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-58-con.htm