The 7 most ignored real world weapons.

[Stuart]

Saw this section when flicking through 'Shield of Faith' :

None of these deletions were mourned, but one item was a stake in the heart of the Air Force. McNamara killed the B-70 program. The B-70 was to be the superbomber - supersonic, flying at 70,000 feet, capable of intercontinental range. This was where the Air Force saw its future. But the plane had been designed like the contemporary 1950s interceptors, to maximize speed, so nothing could be hung on the outside of it. The B-70 could only carry bombs, not carry the air-to-ground missiles that were already being fitted to the B-52s to stand off beyond the range of Soviet antiaircraft defenses.

I don't have my copy of 'The Ride to Valhalla' to hand at the moment, but I don't recall any mention of external stores provisions on the XB-70. OTOH, the drag from a pair of missiles should be fairly limited, tolerable with a minor engine upgrade and a small drop in range. So who's correct here?

Me

The original XB-70 didn't have external hardpoints but late in the design process, four were added for Skybolt and/or drop tanks. The same was done for the B-58; originally this aircraft would have carried all its weapons in its pod but four shoulder hardpoints were later added as well.

The reason is that originally it was feared that Mach 3 carriage of external weapons would be prevented by heat considerations but later studies showed that wasn't the case.

[K. A. Pital]

The reason is that originally it was feared that Mach 3 carriage of external weapons would be prevented by heat considerations but later studies showed that wasn't the case.

Pardon me if I'm asking something classified, but studies (as in "theoretical models") or actual test runs of Mach 3 craft with external weapons?

[MKSheppard]

or actual test runs of Mach 3 craft with external weapons?

Well, considering that they actually did test the B-70's paint by painting the vertical stabilizer of an X-15 in it; and then flying it...I'd have to say probably scale models of said pods were hung on an X-15 and then tested

[Stuart]

The reason is that originally it was feared that Mach 3 carriage of external weapons would be prevented by heat considerations but later studies showed that wasn't the case.

Pardon me if I'm asking something classified, but studies (as in "theoretical models") or actual test runs of Mach 3 craft with external weapons?

Actual test runs. A lot of the X-craft program was tied up with developing and testing components for the coming generation of mach 3 aircraft. One of the things done was taking detailed temperature measurements all over an aircraft and that led to some surprising answers (all of which we take for granted today but then were really unusual). The weapons were designed with specific temperature tolerances and it was found that if the racks were positioned correctly, they didn't exceed those tolerances. Another thing, by the way, a weapon hung on a Mach 3 aircraft way outperforms the same weapon hung on a Mach 1.8 or Mach 2 aircraft. The differential is very high, much more than one might suspect from the higher launch speed.

Another problem was that back then there was real doubt as to whether a bomb dropped froma mach 3 aircraft would actually drop. There was a lot of speculation that it would be trapped inside the aircraft by the high-speed airflow. That was a real problem; the A5 Vigilante was a complete failure as a bomber because it had a linear bomb bay that ejected its store rewards (between the two engines). Unfortunately, it ejected into a stagnation area and the result was the store didn't drop, it trundled behind the aircraft. That problem was never solved and that was why the Vigiliante was converted to recon. The failute cost the US carriers their strategic strike role.

So the "will it drop" problem was quite real. Again, there were live tests done and the answer (to everybodies relief) was that the stores dropped from the bay without any problems. There was a problem with bomb-bay doors; conventional ones didn't work. The B-70 would have used a design where a flush-fitting door slid forward (or aft) instead of opening outwards.

[Starglider]

Note: I finished 'The Shield of Faith'. The middle part was very interesting, in that there was a lot I didn't know about why seemingly poor systems went ahead and seemingly good systems were cancelled. However the early section was cursory, and the ending was both somewhat incoherent and cut off at an unfortunate time (before the SDI program had really had time to play out). While the basic points were sound, the tone verged on personal ranting at times and there were a lot of character descriptions that struck me as just personal reminiscing (not that I mind character portraits when done well). Finally though there was some technical detail I would've preferred more - this might've been a classified material issue though (for comparison I'd consider Crossfield's 'Always Another Dawn' an excellent example of heavy, interesting technical detail combined with discussion of the circumstances surrounding the programs and engaging descriptions of characters and places).

So worth the time to read (for one thing it was a break from endless AI papers/books), but only because I was curious about (and not already familiar with) the historical content; otherwise the book seemed pretty mediocre. I see what you mean about the brainstorming though Stuart, lots of wild ideas were mentioned.

[Ace Pace]

Try and pick up wizards of armageddon, it focuses more on the think-tanks involved in the process. It's an interesting look at how policy was formed. This seems to be a newer edition then what I have but dosn't seem so differant.

[Stuart]

Note: I finished 'The Shield of Faith'. The middle part was very interesting, in that there was a lot I didn't know about why seemingly poor systems went ahead and seemingly good systems were cancelled. However the early section was cursory, and the ending was both somewhat incoherent and cut off at an unfortunate time (before the SDI program had really had time to play out). While the basic points were sound, the tone verged on personal ranting at times and there were a lot of character descriptions that struck me as just personal reminiscing (not that I mind character portraits when done well). Finally though there was some technical detail I would've preferred more - this might've been a classified material issue though (for comparison I'd consider Crossfield's 'Always Another Dawn' an excellent example of heavy, interesting technical detail combined with discussion of the circumstances surrounding the programs and engaging descriptions of characters and places).

So worth the time to read (for one thing it was a break from endless AI papers/books), but only because I was curious about (and not already familiar with) the historical content; otherwise the book seemed pretty mediocre. I see what you mean about the brainstorming though Stuart, lots of wild ideas were mentioned.

Shield of Faith probably means more to me on a subjective level because BBB is writing about an era I was involved in and about people I knew and worked with (several close friends of mine are mentioned there) so it brings back happy memories. It does give a good feel for The Business even to outsiders though. BBB tells a lot more about himself that he realized in that book.

It's very hard to get comparable insight on developments since then because a lot of it is still classified - in some cases very much so - and without those bits, the rest of the story doesn't make sense. That's already beginning to be a problem by the end of the book.

Wizards of Armageddon is OK but it doesn't capture the atmosphere or personalities the way BBB did. Also, Kaplan is too busy getting over his own hobby-horses and it gets in the way.