Even rockets with thrust vectoring need wings or fins to “lift” the missile in a turn. Without the wing or fin area to react against, all thrust vectoring will do at very high altitudes is turn the missile side ways. At the altitude the B-70 was designed to fly, that is an iffy thing for an anti aircraft missile.

Example during the cold war Russian fighters couldnt stay with even a B-47 in high altitude turns. In the early years of its deployment the B-47 scared the hell out of the Russians.

levsha

If cancelling the B-70 was a good idea, how come we are still flying the B-52 probably up into the 2040s. A B-70 would carry cruise missiles to their launch point much higher, and 3 timess faster.

Maybe if the F-35 wasnt intened to be the do all, end all, do everything, be all things to all people it wouldnt be such a POS as it is so far. It plainly shows that there should be two classes of aircraft, fighters, and attack planes. If you had the two classes of plane, one as an ASF and one as an attack plane, they could be simplified for that role.

For support of my argument, I offer the F-111 designed under the self proclaimed genius MacNamara. As a fighter it was to be great for both the Air Force and the Navy. It was a total turkey. Only when it was turned into a medium bomber did it become useful. Why didnt the Pentagon learn from this stupid idea of making one design a do all design. Additionally———-when we had the F8U and the A4D, they were great at their separate roles.

I just plain disagree with all the anti B-70 posts. Look logically at a couple of facts. The SR-71 was NEVER shot down by missles, even tho fired at several thousand times. SAMs are short range, and the B-70 would run them out of fuel before they could get to the B-70. Also we are still flying the B-52 as a viable weapon system. So tell me if the AF thinks a B-52 flying at 45,000 feet and 600 mph, why wouldnt a B-70 flying at 80,000 feet and mach 3 be more surviable? Remember these days a B-52 does not fly directly over the target, they stand off and fire weapons at the target hundreds of miles away. A B-70 would do the same thing except higher and faster and closer, and still be able to get away.

I contend that an enemy would have to fill their country with SAM sites every 10 miles all over the country to be able to shoot down a B-70. So many sites that a country would go broke doing so.

Lastly a MIG-25 was mentioned, as the USSR response to the B-70. When one was handed over to us in Japan, it was found out that it was so poor quality there was a placard on the panel that said “dont exceed mach 2.8”. Also its maneuverablity was in question. So how was a plane that was much slower and less maneuverable going to shoot down the B-70?

It remains that IMO NcNamara and his “whiz kids” that gave us the Edsel were idiots!!!!!!