It's got props and flies under mach. That's outdated by 1950's standards. The fact in 2024 we still use them tells us we are a civilisation in collapse. We decided babysitting the third world was more important.
"Designed in the late 1950s to replace the aging B-52..." You mean the B-52 that first flew in 1952 and entered service in 1955? Aging? Who writes this stuff? You need to fire your writers.
It's actually not that amazing. It's precisely what happens when you take all of the smartest people in the country and put them in the same room. That whole free market, best ideas, and capitalism drives innovation is simply a myth. Necessity and curiosity/imagination are the drivers of innovation.
Except that we actually went to Mach 25 with nukes.. which is why the XB-70 was cancelled. It was a fully automatic flintlock rifle in the era of cartridges.
@@Intrusive_Thought176 So you think that because someone points out a problem with capitalism (which I didn't do) then they are pro communism? If I said I like pancakes are you going to ask me why I hate waffles too? Read again I said (paraphrasing ): if you put the smartest people in a room interesting things happen. Necessity and imagination fuel innovation. Mr. Kalashnikov didn't get a dime for his idea, and yet he innovated one of the greatest small arms platforms in the world. Last thing if communism is what domed Soviet Russia; how is capitalism helping the Russian Federation today? Shouldn't Russia be Switzerland by now?
I mean it went from being able to drop unguided munitions to being basically a long range flying HIMARS capable of launching multiple Lockheed Martin Mako Hypersonic missiles at mach 5+
Your facts are all wrong. It was not built to replace the B-52 . It built to fly into Russia at Mach 3 speeds and work along side the B-52 which was not Aging. The XB-70 cancelled because of the addition of longer range nuclear missles. Even though the bomber program was cancelled the plane still flew with NASA for a bit before being retired and sent to the Airforce museum.
It’s absolutely insane that in 15 years, long-range bombers went from the propeller-driven B-29 to a bomber that could cruise at mach 3 at 70,000 feet, and was immediately deemed obsolete because self-guided, intercontinental nuclear warheads delivery systems were invented. The pace in which technology has been advancing ever since the industrial revolution is astonishing.
The fact we went from the first ever powered flight on 17th December 1903 to jet engines, delta wings, mach 3 and nukes in 50 years tells me one thing, we traded technologies with aliens 👽 😳
The surviving example (two were built) is on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force (old Wright Patterson Air Force base) near Dayton, OH.
@@GracedSeeker763 Because the F-104 that was intended to be part of the photoshoot got too close to B-70's turbulent wake, causing the starfighter to roll over and shear off both vertical stabilisers on the big plane.
@@dosgamer74Ah, the F-104. One of only two aircraft I can think of that were so accident prone they are responsible for the accidents of other aircraft (the other being the DC-10 causing the Concorde accident, in case you were wondering).
The military concorde came later...we still have no clue about the maximum potential capabilities of the SR-71 because they never really tried and even at the speeds they were at, each time they throttled up, the materials would harden and improve themselves with the specifics of the heating/cooling
Oh, there's more plot twists... The Russians created the Mig 25 to combat the B-70 Valkyrie. The only thing the Mig 25 foxbat did well was travel at mach 3+. Not knowing this, the US Air Force thought the Russians were building a super fighter, so the US Air Force authorized the creation of an air superiority fighter. At the time, it gave birth to the F-15. A captured Mig 25 proved the Mig's were over hyped.
There were only 2 of the XB-70’s made. The first one was destroyed during a photo op mission. The only remaining one is on permanent display at The National Museum of The United States Air Force, at Wright-Patterson AF Base, Dayton OH.
@@paulcochran1721just curious but if they only made two, why was the first serial number 0001 and the second serial number 0207...? sincere question, I don't actually think they secretly made 205 more in between but that's weird numbering, wouldn't you say... 🤔
@@jonathanozment4523 To my understanding, serial numbers are based on what number of aircraft or missile it was within the fiscal year, so the first XB-70 was the first purchase of the 1962 fiscal year while the second one was the 207 purchase. According to my quick research, the numbers in between are Titan II and AGM-28 Hound Dog missiles
I first met this beautiful bird in 1970. She sat outside the old museum facility on the other side of Wright-Patt. For years she sat outside the museum's present location. I was very happy to see her cleaned up and inside, next to my other favorite bird, the SR-71. Growing up near the base was and is a privilege. So much history!
I CAN tell you for sure that the coating that goes on the aircraft at that speed makes all the difference from a turtle to a cheetah. I recommend a Teflon coating. It won’t get ripped off at those speeds. It will slice through air like butter. Take it from my ex race car driver, I know…
Engineer at home: we are almost finished with the project but we still need a name for it Engineers 8yo son: XB70 nuclear armed deep penetration supersonic strategic bomber 😂
I wonder how much fuel it drinks up for each flight hour? Those engine exhausts certainly look very large, and so with this model still around and the blueprints available, could we build an updated version to protect the planet from invasion today? They could arm it with the latest air-to-air missiles, or lasers and so forth, plus give the airframe a stealth coating.
yup i visit regularly (although the Smithsonian out by Dulles with a Shuttle, a Concorde, a SR-71, and an F14 definitely holds its own). was just at Wright Patterson back in Dec 2023 to photograph the newly added Sukhoi Su-27... ironically something overlooked about NAFM is actually found in the name, in that unfortunately what you WON'T see there are any Navy Aircraft like the aforementioned F14, F18, etc... oh another place with a half-decent collection is the museum at Hill AFB, Salt Lake City. a well known base for F16 and now F35, they have on display the only SR-71C in existence, which apparently was a hybrid made from the rear half of a YF-12 and the front half of a 71.
They kinda do go to any base they put the old air crafts on pedestals it's not economical to maintain them in working order but they are kept in cosmetic shape and look amazing.
Not only would it have been prohibitively expensive to keep the Valkyrie flying just for PR purposes, it would have been kind of dangerous. From what I've heard, this was not an easy dragon to ride, and the fact that there is only one in existence, it would be far too valuable to potentially lose in a crash. It would be amazing to see it fly again, though, I'll admit.
@@the_darkgameryt While the "aging" part is clearly wrong, it's not surprising that defense designers would start working on the replacement for a system still n production. As an example, M60 tank production continued into the 1960s, which was about when the US began developing its replacment, the MBT-70. Being proactive turned out to be a good idea, because the MBT-70- was ultimately cancelled, as was its successor, XM803. Eventually the Army got its M60 replacement, the M-1, around 1980, 20 years after the older tank entered service, and over a decade after they began trying to replace that older tank.
@@darkmatter1152 The B-21 is to replace the B-2, hence it's first assignment to Ellsworth AFB, SD. With the new engine replacement program for the B-52 (along with electronic upgrades), it's expected to still be in service for at least another 30 years.
Soviet advancement in high-altitude SAMs were the other main reason why it was cancelled. USAF strategic bombing doctrine shifted to low level penetration (which is a more effective method of evading enemy defenses). This shift in doctrine also led to the cancellation of the B-1 program. But few years later, the B-1 was brought back by Reagan, and this time the B-1 went through some changes (airframe changes to reduce rcs such as engine shape, stabilizers, other changes included increased range, lower supersonic speed but higher subsonic speed etc), and was designated the B-1B.
everyone talking about how the B-52 was not "aging" in the 50s because it was still "new" But you guys fail to realize that the B-52 was already considered an "obsolete" design when it was being designed, let alone by the time it entered service. Not to mention, command always wants something new to replace the things they *just* put into production. While we all love the BUFF, you can't ignore that it is a relic from a different era of warfare. All that said, I would love to see a BUFF in space combat
The B-70's capabilities forced the Soviets to build a fleet of jets that could intercept it. Canceling the B-70 made the Soviets' expenditure useless. Mission accomplished.
B-52's first flight was 1952. It came into service in 1955. They were still being built up until 1962. They were not "Aging" in 1959. They were brand new. The Valkarie wasn't meant to replace an "Aging" airframe. It was meant to usher in a new strategic doctrine. One that turned out to be wrong.
@@FP194 Yes. I believe I mentioned that. The doctrine changed. The airframe was still brand spanking new. It was not "Aging". It was built for carpet bombing. But our politicians became increasingly cowardly. They were afraid to use this tactic because it might strike a cold war adversary on accident. If they would have used it as it was intended, it wouldn't have been "Obsolete" at all. It would have been bleeding edge. But now it has upgrades to fit into the new, cowardly doctrine of politics. A doctrine that will be abandoned if we ever have a real war. Because it's way too expensive.
Correct, which is why the B-1A was cancelled, and when it was brought back, it went through some redesign and re-designated as B-1B, for low level penetration.
Doctrines aren't "right" or "wrong" except in their effectiveness. The doctrine of high-speed flyover missions through USSR airspace was abandoned and reworked after the Gary Powers incident.
Stuff like this just makes Concorde seem even more insane - the fact that it could cruise at mach 2 whilst full of passengers sipping on champagne is just crazy to me. Concorde's first flight was only 5 years after the XB70, wild.
Well. It completely knocked the deep penetration out the park. Gotta love the deep penetration feature. I think I just like saying deep penetration. Call sign "penetrator" . 😅😅😅
yes absolute shame, it is a technology demonstration platform, now they are spending again hundreds of millions to achieve the same, while we had it 50 years ago. same thing that happened with the Apollo program….🤷
@@ivandemiguel8607 " they are spending again hundreds of millions to achieve the same, " They are? Looks like most manned aircraft are subsonic, whereas the high speed research is into unmanned aircraft, which has been going on for decades. Also, the development of high speed unmanned vehicles is not what the Valkyrie was designed to do. "while we had it 50 years ago." Actually we didn't. We had 2 airplanes that we didn't need and couldn't afford to put into production.
@@thomasrobinson182 It sounded like a computer generated run on sentence. It said 'fighter interceptors were the primary threat to bombers at the time' Didn't pause long and went into the reason bombers are less useful with 'Continental ballistic missiles'. It did omit the SAM's becoming the actual reason why bombers are less useful in actual combat. AI and CG voices have no sense of timing and it just rolled along like one sentence.
@@TheRogueminatorI think what the douchebag meant was which one is everyone’s favorite, not which one would win in a fight. You’d have to be dumber than drool on a dildo to think theses two would actually fight each other…but on the other hand, look who asked that comment…..
@@TheRogueminator I guess none of them have an Amazon Prime video subscription... Fallout is fun to watch; terrible to live through. Maybe Dr. Strangelove should be required reading (viewing) in school?
That plane was designed and built way back during the 1950s. WOW!!! It looks so far ahead of its time and still looks very modern even today! It instantly reminds me of the Concorde.
So? Why don't you take a nice vacation and be sure to book your flight on one of the air travel industry's fleet of supersonic airliners. Be sure to let everyone know how it goes.
@@john2g1They look for any reason to trash America so logic will do no good.If it’s anything like TikTok around here, it’s full of Russian trolls.You can say”good morning”and they’ll somehow twist into an anti-American statement.The funny thing is that after you see it enough, it starts to look REALLY desperate. 😂
25 was designed to intercept the SR-71 Blackbird man get your facts straight the mig-25 wasn't even thought of when the valkyrie what is being developed do your research man
Yep, that's what the internet says. Problem is, the facts don;t support that. The B-70 was designed in 1957, years before the Soviets authroized developmen of the MiG-25. The US cancelled the B-70 a few weeks later, but development of the MiG-25 continued for the following decade. Clearly, the 2 planes have nothing in common.
You probably don’t know, but the USSR created an analogue of the Valkyrie aircraft. This is the Sukhoi T-4 project. This is a unique titanium aircraft. 😊
@@babuk-karpuk you ripped off the valkyrie airplane the Russians have always ripped the Americans off man you guys wouldn't have any technology if it wasn't for us
@@babuk-karpuk I don't know that that T-4 was "an analogue of the Valkyrie aircraft", and I'd be surprised if there was any ghard evidence that it was. T-4 barely looks like Valkyrie, and mostly when seen from the front. There are far more substantive differences when viewed from other angles. T-4 has a single fin mounted on a tail cone aft of the engines, unlike the twin, fueselage-mounted fins on Valkyrie which are ahead of the engines. T-4 had a pivoting nose cone, something that Valkyrie did without. Valkrie had downward-pivoting wingtips, while those on T-4 (in pictures I've seen). The 2 planes didn;t fly alike, and I have yet to see any evidence that T-4 was designed to make use of "compression lift", which was a big part of the B-70. The 2 planes didn't even have the same mission, with Valkyrie being a strategic bomber (cancelled in 1961) and T-4 to be armed with anti-ship missiles. And it's obvious that the 2 planes aren't even from the same era. valkyrie was designed in the late 1950s, and after being cancelled as a bomber, flew in 1964. As the XB-70A, Valkyrie was retired in early 1969. T-4 wasn't even built before 1971. Different missions, different designs, different countries and different eras, but somehow...analogues?
the fact that he said "could cruise for thousands of miles at mach 3" and "the XB-70 was a true game changer, boasting unprecedented speed and capabilities" it couldn't even achieve either of those requirements in testing and never even got out of testing for that matter to be a game changer.
The Valkyrie was and is an utterly beautiful, and utterly lethal, looking aircraft. I had the pleasure of seeing it at the Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio about 10 years ago. What a magnificent airplane! The museum has many other noteworthy airplanes as well: a B-52 parked over a WW-II warbird (I forget what type, but as I recall, it was a P-51D Mustang), an X-15 spaceplane, along with several other experimental prototypes, Or how about an SR-71 spyplane? Incredible! It surprised me that it was a lot smaller than I thought it was. There was a B-1 bomber parked on the walkway leading up to the main entrance, and a length of the Berlin wall inside, with a Trabant parked alongside.
It looks a smashing aircraft but I've spotted the flaws in aerodynamic bodywork. On a contrary the B-52 Stratofortress has been in US Air Force service since 1952-5 so how could it be aging? I am baffled with the narrative. Could he mistaken it for B-47 Stratojet?
“Hey guys I have a great idea! Let’s spend a few Billion dollars on a plane that we’ll never fly! And then we’ll mothball it and just make a short TH-cam video later about it.” “Sounds great! I’m in!”
![ILLSLICK - THE KING'S LANDING [Freestyle]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/feIJJnNkTfk/mqdefault.jpg)
Designed in the late 1950s to replace the "aging" B52....that was still in production.
Exactly what I thought 😂
I was thinking it was new back in the 1950s.
I came to say this. It was so annoying lol 😆
It's got props and flies under mach. That's outdated by 1950's standards. The fact in 2024 we still use them tells us we are a civilisation in collapse. We decided babysitting the third world was more important.
And it is still flying in 2024.
"Designed in the late 1950s to replace the aging B-52..." You mean the B-52 that first flew in 1952 and entered service in 1955? Aging? Who writes this stuff? You need to fire your writers.
prob ai
All these shorts have intentional faults. That sparks discussion, which increase traffic and income.
@@Svitjod1work SMART not HARD 😁👏
In terms of the speed of aeronautical development, the B-52 was aging at that point.
True. At that time was the overlap in propeller and turbine aircraft. Early jets were almost obsolete as soon as they came out.
The fact we went from prop plane's in 1945 to mach 3 with nukes amazes me
It's actually not that amazing. It's precisely what happens when you take all of the smartest people in the country and put them in the same room.
That whole free market, best ideas, and capitalism drives innovation is simply a myth.
Necessity and curiosity/imagination are the drivers of innovation.
Except that we actually went to Mach 25 with nukes.. which is why the XB-70 was cancelled.
It was a fully automatic flintlock rifle in the era of cartridges.
@@john2g1Coping about capitalism is so funny. Kept the economy going throughout the cold war. What happend to the communist soviet economy?
@@Intrusive_Thought176 So you think that because someone points out a problem with capitalism (which I didn't do) then they are pro communism?
If I said I like pancakes are you going to ask me why I hate waffles too?
Read again I said (paraphrasing ): if you put the smartest people in a room interesting things happen.
Necessity and imagination fuel innovation. Mr. Kalashnikov didn't get a dime for his idea, and yet he innovated one of the greatest small arms platforms in the world.
Last thing if communism is what domed Soviet Russia; how is capitalism helping the Russian Federation today? Shouldn't Russia be Switzerland by now?
@@john2g1
Helps Putin's net worth@$3Billion
It's so crazy when you look at aircraft like this and the SR-71 and compare them to the cars developed at the same time
B-52 70 years later: "I can do this all day."
It really can lol
I mean it went from being able to drop unguided munitions to being basically a long range flying HIMARS capable of launching multiple Lockheed Martin Mako Hypersonic missiles at mach 5+
The XB 70. Living proof that the BUFF is forever 😂
Habitual Crossover fan
Linecrosser*
@@Spyder7051 Hehe, I mean the jokes are okay and he can be pretty educational on some topics.
WAY KEWL, !!!!!😂😂👍👍👍
@@Spyder7051the BUFF is its real nickname nothing to do with HLC
lol the aging B52 is still here, going strong🤣
And will be for probably another 30 years
until the new birds have to fly to save some president
they have secret stuff thats crazier.
😆 "going strong" and smoky 😑
Your facts are all wrong. It was not built to replace the B-52 . It built to fly into Russia at Mach 3 speeds and work along side the B-52 which was not Aging. The XB-70 cancelled because of the addition of longer range nuclear missles. Even though the bomber program was cancelled the plane still flew with NASA for a bit before being retired and sent to the Airforce museum.
There was no Russia at 1952.
@DontMansion no need to correct him we get what he meant. Russian part of USSR or what would become modern day Russia.
@@k7y he corrects someone. I correct him:)
@@DontMansion fair, but he actually had a point
@@k7y but me too
It’s absolutely insane that in 15 years, long-range bombers went from the propeller-driven B-29 to a bomber that could cruise at mach 3 at 70,000 feet, and was immediately deemed obsolete because self-guided, intercontinental nuclear warheads delivery systems were invented. The pace in which technology has been advancing ever since the industrial revolution is astonishing.
Thanks to Germans who got their tech from an advanced race hailing from the Andromeda galaxy...
Most people don’t realize it
Let’s just hope we survive it.
The fact we went from the first ever powered flight on 17th December 1903 to jet engines, delta wings, mach 3 and nukes in 50 years tells me one thing, we traded technologies with aliens 👽 😳
It’s also sad how the main prototype got destroyed during a photoshoot
The surviving example (two were built) is on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force (old Wright Patterson Air Force base) near Dayton, OH.
How does it get destroyed in a photo shoot?
@@GracedSeeker763 Because the
F-104 that was intended to be part of the photoshoot got too close to B-70's turbulent wake, causing the starfighter to roll over and shear off both vertical stabilisers on the big plane.
@@larrysfarrisWright Patterson AFB is still active. Yes the museum is there. Yes the XB-70 is there. :-)
@@dosgamer74Ah, the F-104. One of only two aircraft I can think of that were so accident prone they are responsible for the accidents of other aircraft (the other being the DC-10 causing the Concorde accident, in case you were wondering).
i call it the military concorde
Far more sophisticated than Concorde.
In what way?@@mickregan2620
@@mickregan2620 iknow but i still call it the military concorde
The military concorde came later...we still have no clue about the maximum potential capabilities of the SR-71 because they never really tried and even at the speeds they were at, each time they throttled up, the materials would harden and improve themselves with the specifics of the heating/cooling
@@AzraelThanatosi fuckin love the SR-71 its such a special plane
Absolutely beautiful aircraft
You too must like the deep penetration feature.... 😅
To think that aviation went from wood and cloth to THIS in half a century is absolutely mind-boggling!
I love how retrofuturistic the plane looks! Definitely a big change from the B-52
Those engines look like a star destroyers
exactly, i wouldn't be surprised if that's where Lucas' special effects team got some of their inspiration for Star Wars.
Dark 🕶️ people always want to kill the light
Your comment for me appeared to be reviewed from TH-cam app for some reason …
It kinda looks like the ship from the first Transformers cartoons, the hand drawn animations
💯
Plot twist, B-52 is still in service 😅
Plot twist: they got us to engage with the post and boost them in the algorithm with this simple trick
And there even brand new J models of the B-52 still on order too, with more efficient engines and state of the art avionics.
Oh, there's more plot twists... The Russians created the Mig 25 to combat the B-70 Valkyrie. The only thing the Mig 25 foxbat did well was travel at mach 3+. Not knowing this, the US Air Force thought the Russians were building a super fighter, so the US Air Force authorized the creation of an air superiority fighter. At the time, it gave birth to the F-15. A captured Mig 25 proved the Mig's were over hyped.
@@peasantsarerevolting9343 mig-25 had a top speed of Mach 2.83 while carrying no Armament
Because it make more sense than this expensive obsolete plane
There were only 2 of the XB-70’s made. The first one was destroyed during a photo op mission. The only remaining one is on permanent display at The National Museum of The United States Air Force, at Wright-Patterson AF Base, Dayton OH.
The first one SN# 62-0001 is at Wright Patterson, Second one, SN# 62-0207 was the one lost.
@@paulcochran1721just curious but if they only made two, why was the first serial number 0001 and the second serial number 0207...? sincere question, I don't actually think they secretly made 205 more in between but that's weird numbering, wouldn't you say... 🤔
@@jonathanozment4523 To my understanding, serial numbers are based on what number of aircraft or missile it was within the fiscal year, so the first XB-70 was the first purchase of the 1962 fiscal year while the second one was the 207 purchase. According to my quick research, the numbers in between are Titan II and AGM-28 Hound Dog missiles
True, I have been there directly inside the operational air base, together with other experimental aircraft
National Museum IMO is the finest one in this country!
I first met this beautiful bird in 1970. She sat outside the old museum facility on the other side of Wright-Patt. For years she sat outside the museum's present location. I was very happy to see her cleaned up and inside, next to my other favorite bird, the SR-71. Growing up near the base was and is a privilege. So much history!
I CAN tell you for sure that the coating that goes on the aircraft at that speed makes all the difference from a turtle to a cheetah. I recommend a Teflon coating. It won’t get ripped off at those speeds. It will slice through air like butter. Take it from my ex race car driver, I know…
Engineer at home: we are almost finished with the project but we still need a name for it
Engineers 8yo son: XB70 nuclear armed deep penetration supersonic strategic bomber 😂
Deep penetration? Isn't it too much for a 8yo😂😂😂
XB70 nuclear armed deep penetration splinter covert super mega monster extra fast supersonic brilliant genius tactical strategic bomber
@@1yoan3 Nenechi, is that you?
Lmrofl
@@herbderbler1585
@@herbderbler1585BBit chungus Ollie moment
I swear it looks like a dragon to me....
A very beautiful dragon with just a wisp of a smile.
Like it knows that if it had the chance... Everything would be fire.
I wonder how much fuel it drinks up for each flight hour?
Those engine exhausts certainly look very large, and so with this model still around and the blueprints available, could we build an updated version to protect the planet from invasion today?
They could arm it with the latest air-to-air missiles, or lasers and so forth, plus give the airframe a stealth coating.
To this day, I think the XB-70 is the MOST BEAUTIFUL AIRCRAFT I have ever seen.
No doubt
Blackbird is more elegant I think
Après concorde
No A-10?
B-1 gets me hard.
The Air Force Museum in Dayton, OH has one on display. Epic aircraft!!
The 1950s saw a massive jump in technology capability and innovation for some reason.
Aliens are/were the reason. 👽
@@truthbtold2910Idiot.
Absolutely gorgeous machine😮
It's at Wright Patterson AFB in Dayton Ohio.
The world's largest Air Force Museum!
Better than the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum!
Been there many times. Got to walk under the SR-71 before they put up the rope barriers
Truly amazing place..
yup i visit regularly (although the Smithsonian out by Dulles with a Shuttle, a Concorde, a SR-71, and an F14 definitely holds its own). was just at Wright Patterson back in Dec 2023 to photograph the newly added Sukhoi Su-27...
ironically something overlooked about NAFM is actually found in the name, in that unfortunately what you WON'T see there are any Navy Aircraft like the aforementioned F14, F18, etc...
oh another place with a half-decent collection is the museum at Hill AFB, Salt Lake City. a well known base for F16 and now F35, they have on display the only SR-71C in existence, which apparently was a hybrid made from the rear half of a YF-12 and the front half of a 71.
I thought Smithsonian was the largest??
Wouldn’t it have been cool if the Air Force had kept planes like this, that were ahead of their time, going just for airshow purposes.
I know the expense would’ve been crazy.
They kinda do go to any base they put the old air crafts on pedestals it's not economical to maintain them in working order but they are kept in cosmetic shape and look amazing.
or even just have them in taxiable condition like xh558
The Valkyrie has been at the AF Museum in Dayton, Ohio for years. She's still there and looking awesome as ever.
Not only would it have been prohibitively expensive to keep the Valkyrie flying just for PR purposes, it would have been kind of dangerous. From what I've heard, this was not an easy dragon to ride, and the fact that there is only one in existence, it would be far too valuable to potentially lose in a crash.
It would be amazing to see it fly again, though, I'll admit.
Thats a mouthful name for a bomber
It’s the concord!!! I love it!!
More the Tupolev TU-144
How many bombers have they designed to replace the B-52? Yeah they can never find a way to replace it lol
Actually they can and did. But the question isn't about capabilities but about money.
B-21 Raider
the b-52 was still in production so this was not made to replace it
@@the_darkgameryt While the "aging" part is clearly wrong, it's not surprising that defense designers would start working on the replacement for a system still n production.
As an example, M60 tank production continued into the 1960s, which was about when the US began developing its replacment, the MBT-70.
Being proactive turned out to be a good idea, because the MBT-70- was ultimately cancelled, as was its successor, XM803. Eventually the Army got its M60 replacement, the M-1, around 1980, 20 years after the older tank entered service, and over a decade after they began trying to replace that older tank.
@@darkmatter1152 The B-21 is to replace the B-2, hence it's first assignment to Ellsworth AFB, SD. With the new engine replacement program for the B-52 (along with electronic upgrades), it's expected to still be in service for at least another 30 years.
Soviet advancement in high-altitude SAMs were the other main reason why it was cancelled. USAF strategic bombing doctrine shifted to low level penetration (which is a more effective method of evading enemy defenses). This shift in doctrine also led to the cancellation of the B-1 program. But few years later, the B-1 was brought back by Reagan, and this time the B-1 went through some changes (airframe changes to reduce rcs such as engine shape, stabilizers, other changes included increased range, lower supersonic speed but higher subsonic speed etc), and was designated the B-1B.
everyone talking about how the B-52 was not "aging" in the 50s because it was still "new"
But you guys fail to realize that the B-52 was already considered an "obsolete" design when it was being designed, let alone by the time it entered service. Not to mention, command always wants something new to replace the things they *just* put into production. While we all love the BUFF, you can't ignore that it is a relic from a different era of warfare.
All that said, I would love to see a BUFF in space combat
They tried to get a speed freak to replace Grandpa Buff. Fuck that.
50s and 60s golden age of aerospace, now the industry is stagnant
The B-70's capabilities forced the Soviets to build a fleet of jets that could intercept it. Canceling the B-70 made the Soviets' expenditure useless. Mission accomplished.
And it only cost the US tax payers $800,000,000, equivalent to $8,000,000,000 today. Bargain👍🤣
🤡 the gained experience
🤡 they gained experience@@mickregan2620
@@mickregan2620 I mean it was. We won the cold war.
@@robwernet9609the cold war was. Basicly who had more money. To throw at the wall in my mind.
I’ve seen it in person at the Dayton Air Force Museum. It’s massive and especially imposing from the back with its 6 engines.
Awesome Piece of Machinery!
Mach 3+ on an average day 😉
“Aging”
The B-52 was nearly a toddler at that time. Now it is slightly aging but shows no signs of stopping.
1950s: "Hey old man, I'm here to replace you."
B-52 70 years later and still in production: "Did you say something, prototype?"
The Museum of the United States Air Force... beautiful bird...
Dayton, OH. Worth the trip.
Loved seeing this plane at the USAF museum in Dayton Ohio! One of my favs
So far ahead of its time. MIND BOGGLING
Reminds me of Darth Vader's ship only with wings🪽🪽
if this plane was a “secret” aircraft from the 50s-60s, i can only imagine what we have now.
"crewed nuclear bombers seen as obsolete"
Yet still part of the Nuclear Triad alongside ICBMs and SSBNs
seen that aircraft flyinh in north Texas back in 67😮😮😮😮
I would think it would be known as the predecessor to the B-1. Overall, very similar.🤷♂️
And the “BUFF” is STILL getting it done!!!👍😉😄😄
B-52's first flight was 1952. It came into service in 1955. They were still being built up until 1962. They were not "Aging" in 1959. They were brand new.
The Valkarie wasn't meant to replace an "Aging" airframe. It was meant to usher in a new strategic doctrine. One that turned out to be wrong.
The B-52 was obsolete before it was built as Vietnam proved
It’s role now is as a stand off platform to launch ALCMs
@@FP194 Yes. I believe I mentioned that. The doctrine changed. The airframe was still brand spanking new. It was not "Aging".
It was built for carpet bombing. But our politicians became increasingly cowardly. They were afraid to use this tactic because it might strike a cold war adversary on accident.
If they would have used it as it was intended, it wouldn't have been "Obsolete" at all. It would have been bleeding edge.
But now it has upgrades to fit into the new, cowardly doctrine of politics. A doctrine that will be abandoned if we ever have a real war. Because it's way too expensive.
Correct, which is why the B-1A was cancelled, and when it was brought back, it went through some redesign and re-designated as B-1B, for low level penetration.
@@dallasyap3064 exactly. The doctrine changed both times. Even though the airframes were brand new. Neither of them were "Aging".
Doctrines aren't "right" or "wrong" except in their effectiveness. The doctrine of high-speed flyover missions through USSR airspace was abandoned and reworked after the Gary Powers incident.
That fact it’s on TH-cam makes it a big secret good on ya mate
Stuff like this just makes Concorde seem even more insane - the fact that it could cruise at mach 2 whilst full of passengers sipping on champagne is just crazy to me.
Concorde's first flight was only 5 years after the XB70, wild.
How many adjectives does a plane need?
23
You should hear the names of today's missiles. Advanced tactical extended range armor penetrating bunker busting hypersonic JDAMs
So no one’s gonna question the “deep-penetration” 😂😂
70
Well. It completely knocked the deep penetration out the park. Gotta love the deep penetration feature. I think I just like saying deep penetration. Call sign "penetrator" . 😅😅😅
the best looking aircraft ever made, shame on the military and the politicians for not letting this airplane fly
A shame that the military and politicians didn;t spend money on an airplane that didn't add to America's military abilities?
yes absolute shame, it is a technology demonstration platform, now they are spending again hundreds of millions to achieve the same, while we had it 50 years ago. same
thing that happened with the Apollo program….🤷
@@ivandemiguel8607 " they are spending again hundreds of millions to achieve the same, "
They are? Looks like most manned aircraft are subsonic, whereas the high speed research is into unmanned aircraft, which has been going on for decades. Also, the development of high speed unmanned vehicles is not what the Valkyrie was designed to do.
"while we had it 50 years ago."
Actually we didn't. We had 2 airplanes that we didn't need and couldn't afford to put into production.
Shame because they didn't waste a lot of money on a useless plane?
Not 'ICBM', but surface to air missiles.
@@chieftain-sid ICBM = Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. Intercontinental means continent or land mass to land mass. Not a surface to air missile.
@@thomasrobinson182 It sounded like a computer generated run on sentence.
It said 'fighter interceptors were the primary threat to bombers at the time'
Didn't pause long and went into the reason bombers are less useful with 'Continental ballistic missiles'.
It did omit the SAM's becoming the actual reason why bombers are less useful in actual combat.
AI and CG voices have no sense of timing and it just rolled along like one sentence.
Like the SR-71 and concord, this is a one of a kind piece of art combined with raw thrust! 🔥☄️⚡️
I recently got to see this in person, it is truly a beauty to look at
Now imagine it going up against the XF-108 Rapier
Well now you're just making the USA version of: if GOD can do anything can you create an object that he can't lift?
The TU-160 flies and can do it's job, hopefully it'll never have to 🙏
TU-160 VS. B1 Lancer
Who wins?
@@stephenh4177Neither, they are bombers, not meant to hit each other?
@@TheRogueminatorI think what the douchebag meant was which one is everyone’s favorite, not which one would win in a fight. You’d have to be dumber than drool on a dildo to think theses two would actually fight each other…but on the other hand, look who asked that comment…..
@@TheRogueminator I guess none of them have an Amazon Prime video subscription... Fallout is fun to watch; terrible to live through.
Maybe Dr. Strangelove should be required reading (viewing) in school?
The b1 lancer all the sudden doesn't exist?
Currently there are no retirement plans for B52. It's expected to stay in service for at least until 2050s
And getting RR engines.
This was fun to watch & learn 😊👍
That plane was designed and built way back during the 1950s. WOW!!! It looks so far ahead of its time and still looks very modern even today! It instantly reminds me of the Concorde.
Leave it to the Americans to use supersonic Jets as bombers instead of air travel
So? Why don't you take a nice vacation and be sure to book your flight on one of the air travel industry's fleet of supersonic airliners. Be sure to let everyone know how it goes.
@@scottjustscott3730 Should we tell him who invented the first airplane and that it was for air travel? Or do we leave him to his catchphrases?
@@john2g1They look for any reason to trash America so logic will do no good.If it’s anything like TikTok around here, it’s full of Russian trolls.You can say”good morning”and they’ll somehow twist into an anti-American statement.The funny thing is that after you see it enough, it starts to look REALLY desperate. 😂
Why did the Concorde get retired again?
@scottjustscott3730 Go easy on the uninformed. They don't know how easy it is to die from stupidity.
Mean time the USSR put a satellite in orbit.
All beautiful until a Foxbat takes you out with conventional missile 😂
You're in the wrong decade man
"The planned B-70 nuclear-armed deep-penetration supersonic strategic bomber"
What a description
if this is one they told us about, imagine the ones they haven't.
This bomber program was the prime motivation for the development of the MiG-25, IIRC.
25 was designed to intercept the SR-71 Blackbird man get your facts straight the mig-25 wasn't even thought of when the valkyrie what is being developed do your research man
Yep, that's what the internet says. Problem is, the facts don;t support that. The B-70 was designed in 1957, years before the Soviets authroized developmen of the MiG-25. The US cancelled the B-70 a few weeks later, but development of the MiG-25 continued for the following decade.
Clearly, the 2 planes have nothing in common.
You probably don’t know, but the USSR created an analogue of the Valkyrie aircraft. This is the Sukhoi T-4 project. This is a unique titanium aircraft. 😊
@@babuk-karpuk you ripped off the valkyrie airplane the Russians have always ripped the Americans off man you guys wouldn't have any technology if it wasn't for us
@@babuk-karpuk I don't know that that T-4 was "an analogue of the Valkyrie aircraft", and I'd be surprised if there was any ghard evidence that it was.
T-4 barely looks like Valkyrie, and mostly when seen from the front. There are far more substantive differences when viewed from other angles.
T-4 has a single fin mounted on a tail cone aft of the engines, unlike the twin, fueselage-mounted fins on Valkyrie which are ahead of the engines. T-4 had a pivoting nose cone, something that Valkyrie did without. Valkrie had downward-pivoting wingtips, while those on T-4 (in pictures I've seen).
The 2 planes didn;t fly alike, and I have yet to see any evidence that T-4 was designed to make use of "compression lift", which was a big part of the B-70.
The 2 planes didn't even have the same mission, with Valkyrie being a strategic bomber (cancelled in 1961) and T-4 to be armed with anti-ship missiles.
And it's obvious that the 2 planes aren't even from the same era. valkyrie was designed in the late 1950s, and after being cancelled as a bomber, flew in 1964. As the XB-70A, Valkyrie was retired in early 1969. T-4 wasn't even built before 1971.
Different missions, different designs, different countries and different eras, but somehow...analogues?
This was fantastic. It warms the soul that these Gen Z’s see the past & want to celebrate it. Made my day !
I know I’ve never heard this before, but that was a mouthful.
Still a good looking bird.
Stunning design...a Real beauty
An absolutely beautiful aircraft. One of my favorites.
Looks like a Star Wars spaceship
Astonishingly beautiful
the fact that he said "could cruise for thousands of miles at mach 3" and "the XB-70 was a true game changer, boasting unprecedented speed and capabilities" it couldn't even achieve either of those requirements in testing and never even got out of testing for that matter to be a game changer.
Anyone who has not entered official service cannot be retired ❗
Served as a flight test aircraft until 1969, then retired.
Literally just saw this at Wright Patt AFB Museum. Very cool up close!
Awesome looking aircraft!
I saw one of these at the Dayton meusem and it's awe inspiring. Extremely impressive
Still looking futuristic, beautiful.
The Valkyrie was and is an utterly beautiful, and utterly lethal, looking aircraft. I had the pleasure of seeing it at the Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio about 10 years ago. What a magnificent airplane!
The museum has many other noteworthy airplanes as well: a B-52 parked over a WW-II warbird (I forget what type, but as I recall, it was a P-51D Mustang), an X-15 spaceplane, along with several other experimental prototypes, Or how about an SR-71 spyplane? Incredible! It surprised me that it was a lot smaller than I thought it was. There was a B-1 bomber parked on the walkway leading up to the main entrance, and a length of the Berlin wall inside, with a Trabant parked alongside.
60% percent yapping
40% percent facts
As amazing as this is, it has 1% worth against a UFO unaffected by gravity.
It looks a smashing aircraft but I've spotted the flaws in aerodynamic bodywork.
On a contrary the B-52 Stratofortress has been in US Air Force service since 1952-5 so how could it be aging?
I am baffled with the narrative.
Could he mistaken it for B-47 Stratojet?
"the XB70 was a true game-changer"
Bro didn't even log in wym 🤣
The xb-70 will always be my favorite.
Beauty in motion
The fact that _(almost)_ all this info is word to word from Wikipedia
“Hey guys I have a great idea! Let’s spend a few Billion dollars on a plane that we’ll never fly! And then we’ll mothball it and just make a short TH-cam video later about it.”
“Sounds great! I’m in!”
Good ideas
@@Across_Media thanks! I came up with them with some inspiration from the US government!
One of the most beautiful planes ever made.
Probably the most badass airplane ever
USA Updated Version Of BRITTISH CONCORDE.
Easily one of the most beautiful planes ever built in my opinion
It would be nice to see one of these at air shows.
I’ve seen it, it’s amazing and super cool 😎
That's awesome!
It’s a work of art
We spent a trillion dollars of your money for a hanger ornament we never used. "Look how cool we are"
That's just a Condor with 2 extra engines
You mean It's a large Ukrainian cargo plane with 2 extra engines?
One of the most beautiful airplanes, together with the TSR.2
seen it in person, absolutely massive