From: wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
Subject: Re: YB-70 models
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date:  4 Sep 92 22:17:34 GMT

brndlfly@athena.mit.edu (Matthew T Velazquez) writes:

>I.D. Models makes a
>				1/48
>yes, you heard it,
>				1/48
>scale Valkyrie.  It's something like a hundred bucks, so I'd just as soon 
>scratchbuild one, but there you have it.


	I have heard of it.  I think that sucker must be about
6 feet long, 'cause the 1/72 Contrail kit will be about 3 and 1/2 ish
when finished.  That one was something like $48.  I originally
*thought* I wanted a 1/48 XB70 - and maybe someday I will get one,
but for now the money and the physical space are restrictions.

(the 1/48 would have been in scale with my Blackbirds, U2's and F117A)

Since we have been clearing the air about X and Y designators, here
is a reasonably definitive quotation from Steve Pace's book,
"X-fighters USAF Experimental and Prototype Fighters, XP-59 to YF23".

From the Introduction:

"The prefix X is used when an aircraft is in a developmental, experimental
stage where basic mission and design numbers have not been designated, but
the aircraft is not established as a standard air vehicle for service use.

The prefix Y is employed when an aircraft is procured in limited quantities
to develop the potential of the design for service use.

Pre-production types do not have an X or Y classification, and are most
often referred to as proof-of-concept or full-scale development aircraft.

The latter refers to aircraft in the text such as the General Dynamics
F-111A and the Lockheed F-117A that never got an X or Y classification
but, nevertheless, had to undergo development before they earned
production status."

Now for those who have been to the USAF museum, they *have* referred to their
F117 as a YF117.  This may be an error on the museum's part as most of the
written material does indeed refer to that bird as a FSD (FullScale
Development) F117.  It may have been simpler for them to deal with it that way
siince their collection does include birds with X and Y prefixes - and
trying to explain anything else to some of the visitors might be a
real pain in the ass.  :-)

The two Valkyries that were completed were XB70's and NOT YB70's.
Many of the written materials indicate that the number 3 Valkyrie was
to be a YB70.  This air vehicle would have had weapons systems
installed and would have been employed in the testing of those systems.
Valkyrie number three was under construction when the entire project
was cancelled (so I am told) and the fabrication was scrapped.  The
two XB70's were allowed to proceed as test vehicles.  

Editorial Alert.....

Stinking Sec. of Defense McNamara was willing to spend oodles of
money trying to shove the F111 down both the Navy's AND the USAF's
throat as a frickin fighter, which it was NOT.  He cancelled the
XB70 and the YF12 in part (and maybe on the whole) because allocating
funds for them threatened his precious baby, the TFX project - the
result of which was the F111.  He went so far as to order the tooling
for the YF12 to be broken up to make SURE that no more were built.
Idiot.  The YF12, as an interceptor, would have been (and was)
10 times the aircraft as a fighter-interceptor than the F111 ever was.
Not until the F111's limitations were realized and it was put to
PROPER use as a precision strike aircraft was its potential realized.

In its proper role, the FB111's are outstanding aircraft.  The Navy,
to their credit, told McNamara to stick the F111.  They ended up
with an infinitely better aircraft for the role of fleet defense
interception, the Grumman F14 Tomcat.

While the Soviet bomber threat never materialized in the way that some
thought it might, there is evidence of considerable development
of high speed soviet cruise missiles.  Had some number of the
YF12's been built, there is no reason to think that the AN/ASG18
fire control system (which could track and shoot down drones
from the YF12 at ranges better than 100 miles WHILE THE YF12 WAS MOVING
AT MACH3+) would have easily adapted to shooting down said cruise
missiles.  Airframe life was not exactly a problem, either, as
the titanium Blackbirds tended to actually get *stronger* from the
heat tempering of Mach 3+ flight!  Consider that the YF12's stablemate,
the SR71A, lasted in service from 1965 to 1990 (with the NASA birds
STILL flying) and you're talking about a 25+ year lifespan which is
nearly unheard of for the vast majority of aircraft designed in the
late 50's, with the early to mid 50's B52 being a very notable
exception.  (and many of us feel the SR71 was pulled prematurely,
but that is another story.....hopefully one with an, ahem, Auroral
ending......)

As for the XB70 being a target for SAM missiles, perhaps so.  There is also
little reason to think that the rotary SRAM missile launcher would not
have fit in the XB70's massive weapons bay.  I can't imagine how
many stand-off weapons the Valkyrie could have carried.  With standoff
weapons it might not have HAD to make deep penetrations, thus
tending to render the SAM issue less important.  At Mach 3+ speed,
not many fighters could even keep up with it, let alone achieve
a proper weapons lock on it.  It has been confirmed that the
Mach 3+ SR71's were fired on over *1000* times and never brought down.
Some of that is altitude safety.  Much of that is ECM, albeit still
classified to this day.  With development the XB70 Valkyrie might
have been just as safe while firing various types of missiles from
long ranges.

IMHO - McNamara killed two potentially outstanding weapons platforms
just to try to guarantee his pet project, which never saw the light
of day as a fighter because it just wasn't one.

Editorial soapbox off - you may resume your regular posting....  :-)

That I have seen, NONE of the Valkyrie models are marked as YB - 
rather as XB.  I am not sure that any of them contain enough details
of internal bays to reflect any visible differences between the
two.  Some of the books that are around do indicate what some of the
layout for a YB70 and/or production Valkyrie might have looked
like - you may wish to consult Steve Pace's book on the Valkyrie
as I think there are drawings of this nature in his work.

It might be interesting for someone to kitbash a fully-equipped
Valkyrie.......I'd just like to build one for radio control.

Duane

Newsgroups: alt.models