North American XB-70 Valkyrie

StevieC said:
Wasn't there once a proposal to build a delta-winged X-15 to be carried aloft atop a Valkyrie's rear-fuselage and air-launched at supersonic speed, too?
Click to expand...
Just look in the earlier posts in this thread... they are there.
 
There was much discussion in this topic about weapon bay size, but how were the weapons released? I can't see anything on the doors etc. Which must have been pretty challenging at high Mach
 
It depends essentially of the altitude. High Mach at high alt faces the same pressure recovery as at low alt high speed, the kinetic pressure being essentially a factor of air density (0.5ro*v^2).

In effect, YF-12 weapons bays doors were pretty basics in their geometry. For example, at 50000ft air density is less than one fifth of what it is at ground level.
 
Last edited:
red admiral said:
There was much discussion in this topic about weapon bay size, but how were the weapons released? I can't see anything on the doors etc. Which must have been pretty challenging at high Mach
Click to expand...
IIRC they didn't open like traditional bays. The "door" translated aft exposing the bay as I recall.
 
Something I never quite realized before is that WS-110A (the Valkyrie) and WS-125A (the nuclear supersonic bomber) were at least loosely related, notably through Pratt J91. That one had one foot in WS-110 (J91 lost to GE J93) and another in WS-125A (J91 tech was part of Pratt competing design with G.E J87 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_J87)

More exactly, J87 was WS-125A DIRECT cycle by General Electric; while J91 tech was used by Pratt for the INDIRECT cycle.

Bottom line: there were kind of three "ultimate bombers" on the drawing boards circa 1956-57
WS-110: classic chemical (eventually with boron fuels - that other BIG technology craze)
WS-125A, direct cycle - nuclear
WS-125A, indirect cycle - nuclear

The sky was the limit, or no longer was. That is, until they found boron toxicity and deposits ruining the turbojets. And then that a supersonic nuclear bomber was simply unfeasible, whatever the nuclear cycle.
So the whole thing was downrated to CAMAL - subsonic, but for days of time (can't help thinking about MCU helicarriers !)
Another subtelity however was that direct cycle was feasible, but a radiation nightmare; and indirect cycle was the exact opposite. Annoying.
In the end JFK threw ANP under a bus early 1961 and was probably right to do so...
 
Last edited:
F-14D said:
Note also that on the XB-70, the enclosure just encapsulated the crewmember and seat, whereas in the F-111 the entire crew compartment was ejected intact. It's worthy of note that the B-1A was originally designed with a crew compartment that separated intact similar to the F-111. This was abandoned early on when it was determined that conventional ejection seats actually gave a better chance of survivable than ejecting the whole compartment. The first three B-`As were too far along to make the change, but the fourth -1A, and all the Bs used regular ejection seats.
Click to expand...
That seems counterintuitive. Got links or a discussion here?


blackkite said:
Hi!
Is this wing cross sectional drawing correct?

проект "Валькирия"

translate.google.fr translate.google.fr
Click to expand...
Yes, hexagonal wing cross section!



NUSNA_Moebius said:
Just noticed that speed chart on page 1 stating the XB-70 could do Mach 2 on mil power alone.....holy Jesus.
Click to expand...
6x 20klbs thrust on mil power... 28klbs in AB.
 

Attachments

  • 10.png
    10.png
    681.2 KB · Views: 104
  • 11.png
    11.png
    1.6 MB · Views: 73
  • 12.png
    12.png
    825.7 KB · Views: 72
  • 13.png
    13.png
    832.6 KB · Views: 78
  • 14.png
    14.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 91
  • 15.png
    15.png
    792.1 KB · Views: 84
  • 16.png
    16.png
    511.3 KB · Views: 76
  • 17.png
    17.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 77
  • 18.png
    18.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 80
  • 19.png
    19.png
    1.7 MB · Views: 75
  • 20.png
    20.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 74
  • 21.png
    21.png
    938.6 KB · Views: 74
  • 22.png
    22.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 72
  • 23.png
    23.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 96
Prior to the introduction of the Common Strategic Rotary Launcher (CSRL), the B-52 Stratofortress carried up to eight 2000-lb or two 9000-lb thermonuclear bombs in a pair of "clips":
B-52 Clip-In Assembly (1).jpg
B-52 Clip-In Assembly (2).jpg

As explained in Valkyrie: The North American XB-70 by Graham M. Simons (2011), the XB-70 / B-70 Valkyrie has a pair of 14-foot weapons bays separated by a one-foot section. Due to the placement of the sliding weapons bay doors, each of the weapons bays could only be opened and used one at a time. This meant that the Valkyrie could not carry weapons longer than about 13 feet within its weapons bays.

By comparison, the bomb bay of the B-52 Stratofortress is 28 feet long and 6 feet wide (Baugher, 2022).

Does anyone know if the Valkyrie's bomb bays were designed to carry the same pair of "clips" as the B-52?
 
Christopher Wang said:
Does anyone know if the Valkyrie's bomb bays were designed to carry the same pair of "clips" as the B-52?
Click to expand...
While I don't know, I'd be very surprised if they weren't.

Clips are a standard USAF rack, so it'd be easier to design the bomb bay around those existing clips than to design your own custom clips.
 
Christopher Wang said:
Prior to the introduction of the Common Strategic Rotary Launcher (CSRL), the B-52 Stratofortress carried up to eight 2000-lb or two 9000-lb thermonuclear bombs in a pair of "clips":
View attachment 727080
View attachment 727081
Click to expand...
That almost brings a tear to my eye :). One of our Nav's, Jester, would always pick a B-28 laydown profile whenever he'd fly the low-level route with us. Referred to them as "Nation Pleasers" as a play off of a crowd pleaser.
 
Christopher Wang said:
Prior to the introduction of the Common Strategic Rotary Launcher (CSRL), the B-52 Stratofortress carried up to eight 2000-lb or two 9000-lb thermonuclear bombs in a pair of "clips":
Click to expand...
And for a considerable period afterwards: for a long time, B-52s assigned to penetration missions carried one Class B/C weapon or a clip of four Class Ds in the forward part of the bomb bay, and eight SRAMs on a rotary launcher in the rear part.

That, plus twelve ALCMs under the wings, was apparently known as the 'doomsday loadout'.
Christopher Wang said:
Does anyone know if the Valkyrie's bomb bays were designed to carry the same pair of "clips" as the B-52?
Click to expand...
Probable, I would suggest: there are contemporary documents indicating that the operational B-70 would be capable of carrying eight Class D weapons, which only works with the clips.
 
Yellow Palace said:
And for a considerable period afterwards: for a long time, B-52s assigned to penetration missions carried one Class B/C weapon or a clip of four Class Ds in the forward part of the bomb bay, and eight SRAMs on a rotary launcher in the rear part.

That, plus twelve ALCMs under the wings, was apparently known as the 'doomsday loadout'.
Click to expand...
Ouch! That'll ruin the whole planet's day! 4x 1MT bombs, 8x SRAM (~200kt each), and 12x ALCM (~150kt each)...
 
And still a joke (dare I say...) compared to SLAM / PLUTO. The ultimate killing machine.
Kills you first through supersonic blast overpressure at sea level;
Kills you again through its deadly radioactive exhaust;
Kills you a third time dropping a H-bomb on your head;
Kills you a fourth and last time crashing its white-hot reactor on you at supersonic velocity.

It that's not total overkill, then I don't know what is.
 
Archibald said:
And still a joke (dare I say...) compared to SLAM / PLUTO. The ultimate killing machine.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure: there were discussions in 1962 about a 100 megaton laydown (i.e. low altitude delivery) bomb, which could only be delivered by B-52. The military - that is, SAC - never really stopped wanting the biggest bomb it could get. There were some targets that might justify it: certain hardened bunkers required two B53 ground bursts, the second inside the crater of the first.
 
TomS said:
Multiple impacts like this with PGMs is sometimes referred to as "consecutive miracles." Doing it with nukes sounds more like "consecutive apocalypses."
Click to expand...
Well, at least the crater you're aiming for is bigger?

Although you do have to do it inside a nuclear plume. Maybe accuracy is better if you fly it straight to ground zero. Unlikely the crew is getting home anyway.
 
Did they ever actually drop anything from the B70?

Or did that get canned in the end?

Cause with how the bombbay is set up with its speed. I can see wicked turbulence doing all types of "fun" stuff with the weapons.

Before adding in wanting to put a bigger, longer weapon in the bay. While concept Art shows the Starbolt being wing mounted, I can see a bay launch being perfer for speed and aerodynamic reasoning.


One of those great what ifs with this beast.
 
Firefinder said:
Did they ever actually drop anything from the B70?
Click to expand...

I don't know but I do have a book about the B-70 lying around, it's possible the bays in the XB-70A prototypes were only ever used to hold test instrumentation with actual drop-tests being done by the cancelled YB-70A pre-production aircraft. I do remember reading in Chuck Hansen's "Swords of Armageddon" CD-ROM on the B41 (The only three-stage TN bomb the US deployed) history that if the B-70 had gone into production the B41 wouldn't have been carried due to the bomb-bays internal temperature being too high during the extended M3.0 cruise phase.
 
Firefinder said:
Did they ever actually drop anything from the B70?
Click to expand...

I don't think they did. By the time the two XB-70s were flying, the bomber program was already cancelled. The flight testing done by the XB-70s was primarily in support of SST development, which obviously didn't include weapon delivery.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Ouch! That'll ruin the whole planet's day! 4x 1MT bombs, 8x SRAM (~200kt each), and 12x ALCM (~150kt each)...
Click to expand...
Value of in-flight refueling is quite clear here - Soviet/Russian loads, especially for southern targets, were/are way more modest.
 
Yellow Palace said:
I'm not so sure: there were discussions in 1962 about a 100 megaton laydown (i.e. low altitude delivery) bomb, which could only be delivered by B-52. The military - that is, SAC - never really stopped wanting the biggest bomb it could get. There were some targets that might justify it: certain hardened bunkers required two B53 ground bursts, the second inside the crater of the first.
Click to expand...
Meet the CLAW
 
Ainen said:
Value of in-flight refueling is quite clear here - Soviet/Russian loads, especially for southern targets, were/are way more modest.
Click to expand...
With that load, if the alert bombers didn't get refuelled outbound, they'd be tanks-dry over the target. They'd need refuelling in both directions to be able to make it home again.
bobbymike said:
Meet the CLAW
Click to expand...
Different system for a different requirement. That (if it really existed, the evidence is anecdotal) was an MRV system designed for area coverage. The big Class A weapon, at least later in the day, was to defeat very hard buried targets.

The 1958 60 megaton weapon was intended to guarantee destruction of soft targets with a single bomber-delivered weapon, but greater accuracy - on both bombers and missiles - solved that.
 
My dear PaulMM,

with all respect,why we put this topic here ?,it was built only as a prototype,the better place is the Postwar section.

From this source.
 

Attachments

  • 11.png
    11.png
    118.5 KB · Views: 346
  • 12.png
    12.png
    167.5 KB · Views: 232
  • 13.png
    13.png
    164.5 KB · Views: 212
  • 14.png
    14.png
    145.6 KB · Views: 209
  • 15.png
    15.png
    286.6 KB · Views: 187
  • 16.png
    16.png
    605.1 KB · Views: 227
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom