XB-70 as an operational Bomber?

Modeling Subjects Aircraft
1

If the XB-70 had become an operational bomber how would it be painted and what type of markings would it have? Any modifications to it’s basic appearance?

I was sitting in my hobby room last talking with my son (27 yr old, Army vet) and looking at an XB-70 I built years ago he remarked, "you should build one as an operational bomber’. Normally I build aircraft as they actually were but I thought this was cool idea.

My first thought was black (ala U-2 or SR-71). but a dark gray (B-1B?)

Anyway thought I’d toss this one out here and see what comes of it.

2

What a question!

SEA camouflage of course.

No but seriously, I’d think natural metal would look good. The skin was all metal I believe, titanium and mostly stainless steel.

After all the B-58 was metal finish.

By that time the British V force was white with low absorption (anti flash) markings.

3

I think it all depends upon which era and Area if Operations you want to “what if?”. For a SAC nuke bomber in the 60s, bare metal, or bare metal over white. For one TDY in Vietnam dropping iron bombs for Arc Light ops NMF over black, or one of the later SAC camo schemes over black or white. Supposing that the Valkyrie had soldiered on like the BUFF into the 80’s and beyond to when the dark gray/dark green wraparound schemes for low level penetration missions… Oh the possibilities. Or perhaps a low vis high altitude all black scheme with red markings like the SR-71…

4

Definitely an interesting thought!!! I’m building an XB-70 in 1/72 scale right now. Finishes tried on the early B-58s were definitely an issue because of the friction heating. And, the XB-70 was significantly faster. Paint pealing and burning were an issue with the XB-70 early on as well. So durability would have to dictate what could have been used. The paint available for the SEA scheme certainly wouldn’t have worked, although that might have looked pretty wild! At the altitudes the XB-70 was designed to operate white may have been practical. In any case, it would be fun to try some of those variations.

5

I would think white would be a “look at me!” scheme at high altitude- standing out starkly against the deep blue sky of 70,000-80,000 feet. The black of the U-2 & SR-71 would be far more concealing… As well as aiding in heat radiation to cool the airframe at those speeds.

6

Undoubted true, Stik. But I just couldn’t bring myself to hide that beautiful shape with black or dark gray. LOL, I know that’s not what Curtis LeMay would have been thinking. Yep, he would have been thinking concealment all the way.

7

It’s a well guarded secret that SAC couldn’t settle on a paint scheme for her; hence the cancellation…

8

I’d go for the bm over white. It was not supposed to have any stealth stuff.

9

LOL Mississippi. We must be FASHIONABLE. Bob :slight_smile:

10

I’m thinking it would have been a natural finish like the test version. As said heat would be a real issue and a camo scheme would make no sense as nothing would be higher than it!

11

I think the sky is a darker shade of blue up in the stratosphere. I wonder if they would paint it white with obscene messages in Russian on the bottom side.

12

My understanding of the white underbelly on SAC aircraft of the era was to reflect heat from nuclear bombs, not as any kind of camouflage.

13

Yes, it was for anti flash purposes. But the B-58 never carried it. I wonder if that was due to their superior speed over the B-47 and B-52. White is only effecvtive as a “sky camouflage” in the low to medium altitude ranges. Even into the 1980’s B-52’s and FB-111s in the SIOP upper camo still carried the undersides in white.

14

What about using the B-70 to bomb Hanoi in Linebacker 1 and 2. A standoff TV guided 2000 pound bombs launched from nearly 70,000 feet altitude and over the Tonkin gulf.

15

Two passables: B-52H (with white overcast camouflage) and Aurora.

I guess gunmetal, dark gunmetal, but not iron ball black. (Black planes look like holes in night sky.)

16

Wasn’t the all black paint on the SR-71 a special paint used due to the high heat encountered from friction?

How close in performance was the XB-70 to the SR-71?

Both were supposedly Mach 3+ at very high altitudes. Later production B-70s might have even had performance improvements.

17

The XB-70 flew at 70,000ft and Mach 3.0

The SR-71 flew at 85,000+ and Mach 3.3+

So they were close but the SR was faster/higher, And yes I believe the

Sr’s paint was a special high temperature paint. I think it was not for heat

dissipation. Fuel was cycled behind areas (chines) of the skin for cooling.

18

The SR-71 was just a bit newer than the XB-70. But the comparison between the two brings up a valid point. The XB-70 was cancelled due to it supposedly not being survivable against high altitude SAMs. Yet the SR-71 flying pretty much the same profile had numerous launches against it and was never brought down by one. Yes the Blackbird had lower radar cross section long before that sort of thing was even a design consideration. But the Valkyrie just might have had as good of survivability as well.

19

I think the main reason the XB-70 was canceled was the MiG-25. It was vulnerable to the SA-2, but I think the Foxbat, along with it’s cost, were the nail in it’s coffin.

Until Lt. Belenko flew his MiG to Japan the intel on it was limited, and indicated more capability than it had.

Also the SAC doctrine of high altitude/ high speed bomber attack was starting to shift to

low altitude/ high subsonic bomber attack due to the Soviet air defense system.

The SR-71 was just a bit faster and flew 10,000 to 15,000 ft higher. That along with the 1st real

attempt at reducing the radar visibility were enough to make the mission risk acceptable.

20

Also I’ve read that the high altitude doctrine faced the problem of the targets being known ahead of time, therefore defended by fixed launch sites. Whereas as SR-71 wasn’t predictable.

There have been some STS mssions on polar orbits. I wonder how those went.