Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[EsToVnIa]

The first line on the XB-70's wikipedia page:

"The North American Aviation XB-70 Valkyrie is the prototype of the B-70 nuclear-armed, deep-penetration strategic bomber for the U.S. Air Force's Strategic Air Command."

[Gallia-]

b70 was completely focused on nuclear delivery its job was to annihilate major cities

it is probably similarly survivable at least against fixed sams

it flies higher and speed is similar to stealth in that they both reduce launch and intercept windows

but yes it is contemporary with the kennedy administration and curtis lemay

[Sjovenia]

b70 was completely focused on nuclear delivery its job was to annihilate major cities

it is probably similarly survivable at least against fixed sams

it flies higher and speed is similar to stealth in that they both reduce launch and intercept windows

but yes it is contemporary with the kennedy administration and curtis lemay

Nice, ill propably stick with B21. I feel as the the Payload for the XB70 would be the MACE Air Launched Missile.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

b70 was completely focused on nuclear delivery its job was to annihilate major cities

it is probably similarly survivable at least against fixed sams

it flies higher and speed is similar to stealth in that they both reduce launch and intercept windows

but yes it is contemporary with the kennedy administration and curtis lemay

Nice, ill propably stick with B21. I feel as the the Payload for the XB70 would be the MACE Air Launched Missile.

What? B-70 would in all likelihood have carried nuclear gravity bombs, not cruise missiles

Wikipedia is also a good source, especially for things science or engineering or math related. The"references" section at the bottom of each wikipedia article gives you a list of all the sources the article cites, allowing you to judge for yourself if you think they're credible. If you want more "detailed" info dtic.mil is a good place to start.

If you want a bomber for pretty much anything the B-2 should be your first choice. B-70 could work but it would be extremely expensive to operate (especially if you use zip fuel) and need modifications if you intended to use it do deploy conventional munitions. B-21 is a bit of a wildcard since it hasn't entered service or been officially revealed so nobody here knows what it's capability or performance characteristics are (you can make some educated guesses but that's about it).

[Gallia-]

b70 was completely focused on nuclear delivery its job was to annihilate major cities

it is probably similarly survivable at least against fixed sams

it flies higher and speed is similar to stealth in that they both reduce launch and intercept windows

but yes it is contemporary with the kennedy administration and curtis lemay

Nice, ill propably stick with B21. I feel as the the Payload for the XB70 would be the MACE Air Launched Missile.

i dont know what mace is

i imagine any air launched missile used by B-70 would be GAM-87 since they are contemporary

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

i dont know what mace is

i imagine any air launched missile used by B-70 would be GAM-87 since they are contemporary

I doubt you'd create a mach 3 bomber that flies at 70,000+ feet just to have it lob cruise missiles which any subsonic bomber can do perfectly fine.

I'm guessing B-70 probably would have carried B41 and/or B53 bombs.

[Triplebaconation]

Skybolt wasn't a cruise missile.

[Gallia-]

i dont know what mace is

i imagine any air launched missile used by B-70 would be GAM-87 since they are contemporary

I doubt you'd create a mach 3 bomber that flies at 70,000+ feet just to have it lob cruise missiles which any subsonic bomber can do perfectly fine.

I'm guessing B-70 probably would have carried B41 and/or B53 bombs.

good thing skybolt is a ballistic missile then

B-70 had provisions for gravity bombs, 2-4 depending on the class (the necessary bombs were obviously never developed, although B77 might be a starting point since it was designed for high supersonic delivery at m2+)

ballistic missiles were considered for external carriage

unfortunately b70 was too optimized for City Killing and not optimized enough for TEL hunting and making it conventional would ruin the point of the thing

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Skybolt wasn't a cruise missile.

The point stands though, a standoff range ballistic/cruise missile kind of defeats the purpose of a supersonic bomber intended to penetrate enemy air defenses.

I envisioned the B-70 being used to fly through hordes of SA-2s and Mig 25s before dropping multi-megaton bombs on soviet cities.

[Gallia-]

Skybolt wasn't a cruise missile.

The point stands though, a standoff range ballistic/cruise missile kind of defeats the purpose of a supersonic bomber intended to penetrate enemy air defenses.

I envisioned the B-70 being used to fly through hordes of SA-2s and Mig 25s before dropping multi-megaton bombs on soviet cities.

high speed bombers with high speed missiles makes fine sense

if you have to "fly through" hordes of anything you done goofed

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

high speed bombers with high speed missiles makes fine sense

if you have to "fly through" hordes of anything you done goofed

I mean B-70 isn't exactly stealthy, I'd assume to soviets would see it on radar and shoot SA-2s and SA-5 at it while scrambling Mig 25s to intercept. Not that that would stop it.

[Gallia-]

being seen is irrelevant if you cant catch it

unless youre the USAF trying to covertly spy on the Soviet Union without being seen i guess

[EsToVnIa]

The point stands though, a standoff range ballistic/cruise missile kind of defeats the purpose of a supersonic bomber intended to penetrate enemy air defenses.

I envisioned the B-70 being used to fly through hordes of SA-2s and Mig 25s before dropping multi-megaton bombs on soviet cities.

high speed bombers with high speed missiles makes fine sense

if you have to "fly through" hordes of anything you done goofed

flying through hordes of birds is natural AA

[Triplebaconation]

The ultimate armament of the B-70 was intended to be a large number of small missiles conceptually similar to SRAM. It was never developed.

[Gallia-]

that destroys

like literally destroys

was there ever a notional number considered? b-1s carried something like 24 srams at most i think? perhaps something like that?

[Triplebaconation]

There isn't anything about it out there. This was when LeMay was trying to disguise it as RS-70.

The Air Force always knew speed wasn't sufficient to penetrate concentrated local defenses. The periphery was another story.

[The Corparation]

The ultimate armament of the B-70 was intended to be a large number of small missiles conceptually similar to SRAM. It was never developed.

Would launching SRAM like missiles from the B70 provide the same sort of boost that the SR-71(Bx) was expected to give to its SRAMs? B-70 would obviously not be flying fast and high enough to quintuple the down-range of a SRAM style missile like the SR-71(Bx) would have been able to, but I'd imagine that they'd still see a significant range increase compared to launching from a more conventional bomber.

[Rich and Corporations]

high speed bombers with high speed missiles makes fine sense

if you have to "fly through" hordes of anything you done goofed

flying through hordes of birds is natural AA

the bane of wartime pilots is actually powerlines.

being seen is irrelevant if you cant catch it

being seen is irrelevant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies

Still, the turning radius of high speed aircraft make it very difficult to intercept much of anything. Maybe a terminal anti-ballistic missile could kill an SR-71...


See a video on an A-10 making a simulated kill of an F-15.

launching from a more conventional bomber.

Launching a missile from a bomber traveling as fast as a missile sounds like you're missing the point of costs.

[Sjovenia]

Nice, ill propably stick with B21. I feel as the the Payload for the XB70 would be the MACE Air Launched Missile.

i dont know what mace is

i imagine any air launched missile used by B-70 would be GAM-87 since they are contemporary

Never mind... I totally forgot how big MACE was yea theres no way!

[Sjovenia]

Nice, ill propably stick with B21. I feel as the the Payload for the XB70 would be the MACE Air Launched Missile.

i dont know what mace is

i imagine any air launched missile used by B-70 would be GAM-87 since they are contemporary

Says the B1 is capabable of launching "ALCM" which would mean that it could in fact carry nuclear weapons? This is off Wikipedia which like I said I don't trust and here we have conflicting information. You were saying they don't carry nuclear missiles buuuuuut Wiki says they do? Also ALCM should be ALMM/ALM/ or ALAM (not sure of the correct acronym but its pronounced AL-EHM not AL-SEM or any other variation)

[Allanea]

What exactly distinguishes a nuclear-carrying aircraft from one that isn't? As far as I know nuclear bombs are often similar in their shape to conventional bombs. Is there some electronic hookup between the nuclear bomb and the aircraft's controls that would enable the pilot to remove the safeties?

[The Akasha Colony]

i dont know what mace is

i imagine any air launched missile used by B-70 would be GAM-87 since they are contemporary

Says the B1 is capabable of launching "ALCM" which would mean that it could in fact carry nuclear weapons? This is off Wikipedia which like I said I don't trust and here we have conflicting information. You were saying they don't carry nuclear missiles buuuuuut Wiki says they do? Also ALCM should be ALMM/ALM/ or ALAM (not sure of the correct acronym but its pronounced AL-EHM not AL-SEM or any other variation)

I have no idea what you're talking about. ALCM refers to a specific weapon, and ALCM is the correct acronym.

B-1 is no longer equipped to carry ALCM though because under treaty the US and Russia are both limited in the number of nuclear-capable bombers in their air forces, and currently the US nuclear bomber force is composed of B-2s and B-52s. B-1 is physically capable of carrying a number of nuclear weapons and could be refitted for the nuclear role, but in its current operational form is not intended for this purpose. For a time they were rated to carry certain weapons (like SRAM) but not anymore.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

What exactly distinguishes a nuclear-carrying aircraft from one that isn't? As far as I know nuclear bombs are often similar in their shape to conventional bombs. Is there some electronic hookup between the nuclear bomb and the aircraft's controls that would enable the pilot to remove the safeties?

http://www.glennsmuseum.com/controller/controller.html

Basically the aircraft has a dedicated set of control panels in the cockpit which allows the pilot to arm the bomb and set various fuzing options, the panels being connected directly to the bomb via a standardized electrical interface. There's also a panel which is used to input the PAL unlock code which is presumably given to the pilot(s) before the mission although the PAL can also be unlocked pre-flight. I assume all aircraft which have been certified to carry nuclear warheads (including B-1B) would have carried these sets of panels, although they may have been removed from the B-1s after they were nuclear de-certified.

The F-35 will probably have this all built into the multi function display, the only differences between the F-35s that can carry nukes and the ones that can't being some extra software.

[Triplebaconation]

What exactly distinguishes a nuclear-carrying aircraft from one that isn't? As far as I know nuclear bombs are often similar in their shape to conventional bombs. Is there some electronic hookup between the nuclear bomb and the aircraft's controls that would enable the pilot to remove the safeties?

It's the other way around, actually.

[Allanea]

What exactly distinguishes a nuclear-carrying aircraft from one that isn't? As far as I know nuclear bombs are often similar in their shape to conventional bombs. Is there some electronic hookup between the nuclear bomb and the aircraft's controls that would enable the pilot to remove the safeties?

http://www.glennsmuseum.com/controller/controller.html

Basically the aircraft has a dedicated set of control panels in the cockpit which allows the pilot to arm the bomb and set various fuzing options, the panels being connected directly to the bomb via a standardized electrical interface. There's also a panel which is used to input the PAL unlock code which is presumably given to the pilot(s) before the mission although the PAL can also be unlocked pre-flight. I assume all aircraft which have been certified to carry nuclear warheads (including B-1B) would have carried these sets of panels, although they may have been removed from the B-1s after they were nuclear de-certified.

The F-35 will probably have this all built into the multi function display, the only differences between the F-35s that can carry nukes and the ones that can't being some extra software.

So essentially, it's possible to carry nuclear bombs on any aircraft that can carry regular munitions, provided (and that is an important note, as I imagine rewiring the inside of an aircraft is not very trivial work), that these features have been installed?