XB-70 Valkyrie: Why Didn't America Build This Mach 3 Monster Bomber?

XB-70 Valkyrie: Why Didn't America Build This Mach 3 Monster Bomber?

The North American XB-70 Valkyrie was the largest and fastest bomber ever built by the United States, but the massive six-engine Mach 3.0-capable jet never entered production. Only one surviving prototype sits in a museum in Dayton,f Ohio, even as the Boeing B-52 it was supposed to one day replace continues to soldier on.

The idea behind the XB-70 originated in the 1950s when it was assumed ever-greater speeds and altitudes would enable American bombers to survive against Soviet air defenses unmolested on their way to delivering their doomsday payloads. At the time, the only effective defense against bombers were fighters and antiaircraft artillery. Even then, anti-aircraft guns were only marginally effective and interceptors were increasingly challenged by ever improving bomber performance.

[markemanuele]

I love this aircraft, I HATE the STUPID synthesized

[capt.danieldavidson]

What an incredible, beautiful masterpiece she was.

[randywhite]

Remember you only have to get close, plus a plane flying mach 3 is easily engaged by a missile traveling at mach 5. The Gary Powers U2 incident taught us there radar and missile capabilities were much better than we thought they better than ours at the time.

[davidbarnsley]

What a machine but still SR71 is the plane of all times for me 😍😍🇺🇸

[NUCLEARARMAMENT]

This plane could haul 50, 000 lb of ordinance within its sliding-door-equipped bombbay and that was on the original versions. There was a third aircraft slated for completion, which would have had a four-person crew instead of a two-person crew, and even an in-flight aerial refueling probe and a larger bombbay.

[bob]

Answer - Even before the prototypes were constructed it had already lost its mission to another high altitude – high speed delivery system (a.k.a. the ICBM). Lower initial cost, lower operational cost, and higher survivability.

[drbendover]

because missiles make Mach 3 bomber obsolete, you just can't launch a cruise missile at Mach 3.

[GregoryTheGrster]

I think that the narrator of this video is a cyborg.

[tomnscrubs]

Ever think the person who made this doesn't speak you language?

[puttapongkongtabak]

From The Valkyrie documentary. It's cost 11 million $ per flight. That's why they don't build it.

[mr.c]

Pre-runner to the Concord. It was just too expensive for the time.

[waynemgtregear]

so that's where they get the idea for the concord

[JetsonRING]

The valkyrie was cancelled because: ICBM's. Simple.

[b.thomas]

They had to repaint the thing every time it flew. The heat resistant materials wasn't advanced enough for the time. The cost and amount of fuel it expended was immense, and the turn around on the vehicle was way to long. That made it impractical as a weapon system. All of these factors had been discovered during the test phase, and there was no real need to push past prototype. The crash was simply the final blow to the project.
Could they do it today? Probably. Would they? Nope. Stealth B2's can do the same job and is cheaper to operate.

[sulufest]

Hey what is this footage?? Looks like it’s from the 90’s, or later?

[afvet]

Because they love to waste money. The bomber was a thing of beauty and technically advanced.

[donaldgrant]

Ok SR-71 mach 3 XB-70 mach 3. If the SR-71 never got shot down why would the XB-70 be shot down. It would be better then the reworked B-52 of today. Just asking.

[jonathangoode]

With. Today’s technology this still can be built .

[depluribusunum]

Gary Powers u-2 plane had oxygen problems he passed out and the plane spiraled down until it got into the range of the Soviet Sams.

[randybentley]

I wonder why this type of design for achieving high mach performance wasn't considered for the American SST initiative? Just imagine a commercial variation of this design.