XB-70 Questions

[PR19_Kit]

True, but they could be refueled in the air a bit.  The question would ultimately come down to the following
1: The fact that the crew would get tired (admittedly having a pilot and co-pilot could help that)
2: The fact that I'm not sure if the plane had a toilet (when you gotta defecate, you have to defecate)
3: If the tanker bases were taken out (honestly a large sea-plane tanker should have been pursued as it would have fixed this up)
4: The crew would eventually run out of water and food

And the aircraft would run out of lubricating oil for its numerous systems. Oil isn't replenished during FR contacta, although I'm sure it's not an impossible technical task, given the right incentive.

[scooter]

the B-70 would have still need main operating bases to fly from i.e. major first strike targets...

True, but they could be refueled in the air a bit.  The question would ultimately come down to the following
1: The fact that the crew would get tired (admittedly having a pilot and co-pilot could help that)
2: The fact that I'm not sure if the plane had a toilet (when you gotta defecate, you have to defecate)
3: If the tanker bases were taken out (honestly a large sea-plane tanker should have been pursued as it would have fixed this up)
4: The crew would eventually run out of water and food

Most large aircraft have, at the very least, a honey pot, usually 5 gallon pail with "blue juice" mixed in.  And I think the XB-70 would have had one as well, should it have gone into service.

As for using a seaplane tanker?  Air Force and Navy refueling systems are incompatible without modification.  USAF uses the flying boom for non-rotary wing, and has been the primary refueler since Bomber Mafia of SAC smacked the fighter community down in the late 50s.  Navy uses the hose and drogue, like most of the world.  Prior to the KC-10, and the eventual addition of tip pods on the later gen 135s (Rs & Ts), the Air Force would bolt a drogue on the end of the boom, thereby allowing it to only refuel probe-equipped aircraft.
There's also the refueling rates.  The boom can transfer up to 6000 lbs a minute, the hose and drogue at most 2000 lbs a minute.  Refueling bombers requires being able to transfer fuel at a much higher rate, allowing bombers to be refueled in an average time of 20 minutes.  Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versus Hose-and-Drogue

[rickshaw]

When the struggle is for national survival, a small nuclear SAM warhead will put paid to any speed and altitude issues; also the B-70 would have still need main operating bases to fly from i.e. major first strike targets...the ICBM was and is a better option - just not one as cool...

Nuclear warheads are not quite the panacea that you may imagine.   You still need to guide the missile to the same volume of space that the target occupies.  The nuclear warhead will confer the advantage that, that volume of space can be much larger but even so, whereas you're talking about tens of metres with a convention warhead, you're only talking hundreds of metres with a nuclear warhead equipped SAM.   Nuclear warheads rely primarily on radiation and blast to kill their targets.  Because of their small size, their lethal radius is relatively small.  If the target is shielded, then radiation effects are substantially reduced - particularly on the crew.  That leaves blast which attenuates quite quickly with small warheads.

As mentioned, you still have the same guidance problems.   If you can't get your SAM close enough to the target even for a nuclear warhead, then it won't destroy the target any more than one with a conventional warhead.  Putting bigger warheads on the SAM mean bigger rockets to carry them, with all the attendant increases in cost and complexity.  Not impossible but using bigger warheads causes other problems when used over the heads of your own population...

[KJ_Lesnick]

PR19_Kit

And the aircraft would run out of lubricating oil for its numerous systems.

Good catch!  Forgot that one... still, I assume the lubricating oil has some service life to it...


scooter

Most large aircraft have, at the very least, a honey pot, usually 5 gallon pail with "blue juice" mixed in.  And I think the XB-70 would have had one as well, should it have gone into service.

So this would include the B-36, B-47, B-52.  Did the B-29 and B-58?

As for using a seaplane tanker?  Air Force and Navy refueling systems are incompatible without modification.

I know the whole issue regarding the hose and drogue and the flying-boom, I'm talking about USAF built seaplane tanker. 

Admittedly that wouldn't have gone over well... regardless, it would eliminate issues of the tankers getting taken out but the KC-135 would have either been designed very differently or would have been hard to justify (except that seaplanes can't takeoff and land at night).

Bomber Mafia of SAC smacked the fighter community down in the late 50s.

Well they viewed tactical as beneath them since the 1920's.


rickshaw

Nuclear warheads are not quite the panacea that you may imagine.   You still need to guide the missile to the same volume of space that the target occupies.

And hardened targets can actually survive such a blast.  You need a megaton yield weapon IIRC put within 1500 feet of the target.  Most ICBM's were not capable of that at the time (not sure if they are now).  On the other hand the B-58's and B-70's had either a CEP of 1500 feet or could put their bombs inside 1500 feet.  They were actually better for that role.

[Logan Hartke]

And the aircraft would run out of lubricating oil for its numerous systems. Oil isn't replenished during FR contacta, although I'm sure it's not an impossible technical task, given the right incentive.

I remember reading that the B-36 (which did not do A2A refueling) had a capacity for something like a 1,200 gallons of OIL.  Basically, you needed a tanker truck full of lubricating oil for the engines for every flight.  We're not even talking fuel, which was an altogether different scale (nearly 20 times that amount).



Fun.

Cheers,

Logan

[PR19_Kit]

(except that seaplanes can't takeoff and land at night).

Who said so? OK, it's difficult but not impossible. Imperial Airways were doing just that with their Shorts Empire boats when they flew the Horseshoe Route in the late 30s. The night ops weren't scheduled but they did take place when required.

Didn't the USN fly their 'boats at night?

[scooter]

scooter

Most large aircraft have, at the very least, a honey pot, usually 5 gallon pail with "blue juice" mixed in.  And I think the XB-70 would have had one as well, should it have gone into service.

So this would include the B-36, B-47, B-52.  Did the B-29 and B-58?

I think the B-29 may have had one.  But I doubt the B-58 did.  The crews were in three separate cockpits, and may have used something similar to the astronauts, with a waste disposal bag.

As for using a seaplane tanker?  Air Force and Navy refueling systems are incompatible without modification.

I know the whole issue regarding the hose and drogue and the flying-boom, I'm talking about USAF built seaplane tanker. 

You're now introducing essentially a hole in the hull, protected by a sheet of plexiglass, with the boom operators position or, if the position is up higher, a hole for the boom itself.  Both of which can introduce saltwater corrosion into the fuselage, or act as a structural weak point in the hull, which may not be able to take repeated rough water landings.

[rickshaw]

If the tail is upswept the boom could be out of the water as could the operator's cabin, perhaps similar to a tail turret...

[KJ_Lesnick]

Logan Hartke

I remember reading that the B-36 (which did not do A2A refueling) had a capacity for something like a 1,200 gallons of OIL.

Yeah, propellers were bad on oil.  They'd guzzle it; yet they'd sip fuel gingerly...


PR19_Kit

Who said so?

I was under the impression that without an ability to gauge swells you'd be screwed. 

OK, it's difficult but not impossible.

Would it be possible to either shine a light on the water or use some kind of crude night-vision system?

Didn't the USN fly their 'boats at night?

I didn't think so but who knows...

[PR19_Kit]

If the tail is upswept the boom could be out of the water as could the operator's cabin, perhaps similar to a tail turret...

It would have had to be a very deep hull for that configuration to work. Look at piccies of Seamasters taking off and you'll see that the (un-manned) rear gun position is almost underwater on 'rotation'. If the hull's shaped like that of a Sunderland you'd have a better chance of that system working but a hull that deep would be very draggy and would probably limit the performance more than a little.

The Seamaster was tested in the tanker role but using the probe and drogue system with the hose reel mounted on the rotating bomb bay door. I suppose it might be just possble to have a more extendable boom that could also be mounted on such a door, with the operator's cabin rotating with the door. Obviously he'd have to get in there once it was rotated into the FR position!  

KJ, I believe that Imperial did use lights for their night ops, and I'm trying to remember where I've seen a photo of a C Class 'boat landing at night doing just that.

[rickshaw]

I think you'd have to accept the drag problems with an upswept tail, Kit in order to keep the tail position out of the water.

I wonder, would using the Operation Upkeep height finder method of two search lights designed to reflect off the water's surface help?

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw

If the tail is upswept the boom could be out of the water as could the operator's cabin, perhaps similar to a tail turret...

Why not just put the boom up-top and put the operator in the tail-turret position?

[PR19_Kit]

rickshaw

If the tail is upswept the boom could be out of the water as could the operator's cabin, perhaps similar to a tail turret...

Why not just put the boom up-top and put the operator in the tail-turret position?

Maybe because the operator's position needs to be part of the pressure cabin area of the fuselage at the altitudes that most FR missions are undertaken.?

Putting him right in the tail means that more of the fuselage needs to be pressurised which adds weight and costs money. The two main current USAF tankers, the KC-135 and KC-10, and the older KC-97s all have the booms mounted aft of the operator and their operator's positions are forward in the standard pressure cabin envelope of the fuselage.

Admittedly the original KB-29 and KB-50 tankers had their operator's cabins in the tail turret positions of the bombers they were derived from, but in that case the cabins were already there and separately pressurised.

[rickshaw]

You could pressurise the operator's cabin and have them connected to the main cabin via the infamous B-36 "tunnel" and trolley method...

[PR19_Kit]

I think that's what they did with the KB-29 and KB-50. bit it'd still add cost and complication.