Sounds like you are referring to Flight#39 with the second airframe, conducted on May 19, 1966. Believe this was the longest sustained fast flight. For clarification I believe the XB-70’s almost exclusively flew out of Edwards and Palmdale (one trip to Carsewell AFB I believe and the one way delivery flight to the USAF museum) so I doubt she got anywhere near the Atlantic, much less “crossed” it.

Makes you appreciate the A-12/SR-71 which could sustain M3+ for longer periods.

To execute a 91 minute flight covering 2,400 miles, it’s speed couldn’t have been much off M3.0 at anytime between the take-off and landing phase. Over a 3,500 mile jorney a concorde averaged 1,000mph (M1.5), with a Mach 2.02 average cruise, the XB-70 averaged 1,600mph (M2.4) over 2,400 miles.

Make that GUESSES in missile technology. I submit that if the slow lumbering B-52 is still considered a viable war plane, why wouldnt one that could fly more that half again higher, and 4 times as fast. It could arrive on near scene at mach 3 deploy cruise missiles and fly home.

Because the B-52 carries stealth cruise missiles (AGM-129) with 2,000nm range, so to all intents and purposes its speed and altitude is irrelevant. It also has payload carrying ability that the XB-70 could never hope to have. The B-52 hasn’t been intended for use as a free-fall bomber against a peer adversary for a long time. Not really guesses, more like ‘likely simulated outcomes’. And at the end of the day, even a Mach 6 bomber would be easier to intercept than a Mach 25 ballistic target.

As for Mach 3 cruise missiles, yet to materialise in the US. Interestingly though the XB-70 was intended to have a defence against SAMs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pye_Wacket

Barnes, only 2 XB-70’s were completed. The third was no where near complete. Total MACH 3 flight time (over 9-10 flights) was only 1 hour 48 minutes- TOTAL. https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/121584main_FS-084-DFRC.pdf

I too disagree with the 20 year set-back of this thread. An operational B-70 would have been a nightmare to sustain, and would have likely had a similair fate to the near peer B-58- limited, expensive and short lived- and the B-70 was magnitudes more complex than the Hustler.

IIRC one crossed the Atlantic and sustained Mach 3.05 average for 32 minutes and topped out at Mach 3.1 completing a 2,400 mile journey in 91 minutes including take-off and landing, which average out at Mach 2.4 even including subsonic time during landing and take-off and acceleration/deceleration.

It’s kind of worse as it make no distinction between the 5V11 Dal and 5V21 missile family.

still incorrect. There are better sources at pvo.guns.ru or SAMSimulator software. This is from “Fakel’s Missile” about S-200 and 5V21 missile family (5V11 Dal were made by Lavochkin)

Excerpt from Fakel’s missile book.

S-200
http://orig11.deviantart.net/e3b5/f/2015/295/1/f/fakel_smissile1_by_stealthflanker-d9dzg7x.png

5V21
http://orig07.deviantart.net/cf2c/f/2015/295/b/1/fakel_smissile2_by_stealthflanker-d9dzg9h.png

5V28
http://orig04.deviantart.net/065c/f/2015/295/0/3/fakel_smissile3_by_stealthflanker-d9dzgad.png

All mention Semi-active radar homing… none about active radar at all.

The understanding seemed to be that it used both.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/s-200.htm

What do you mean “They eventually got an XB-70 prototype working…”
the two B-70s had a fairly long test program (1964-69). After the loss of the one aircraft in the summer of 1966, the survivor flew research missions (including some for SST research) until being sent to the NMUSAF in early 1969.

I was pointing out that the third prototype flew at Mach 3+ for sustained periods successfully, so they did overcome the technology hurdle but it was rejected as a reliable delivery method, due to changes in air defence and ballistic missile technology.

it is called competition in credibility and effectivness. They already captured Biji

It’ll undermine their credibility if they pull out too though. Their credibility is kind of in tatters after the last 15 years anyway.

Ideally they would be limited to MiG-35, so they are less threatening when they obtain nukes. I imagine they will have to kill off the Tomcats sooner than 2025. Let’s hope Moscow doesn’t export a full squadron of MiG-31 to them. And let’s hope they do not obtain PAKFA.

As far as I know the MiG-31 is out of production, but I guess it’s possible for legacy stock to be exported.

They eventually got an XB-70 prototype working and it was used by NASA until an F-104 collided with it.