Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!fiddler@Sun.COM
From: fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: B1A vs. B1B
Message-ID: <6256@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 5 May 89 00:34:50 GMT
References: <6185@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 20
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix)

In article <6185@cbnews.ATT.COM>, punch@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (William F Punch) writes:
> 
> To stretch things even farther, how different is the B1A from the
> original XB-70 (range, payload, speed)? Were any of the results from the
> B-70 program used in the B1, or was all that lost? Why was the B-70
> cancelled (I remember a crahs but assume the cancellation was
> politics). Thanks for the information.

The B-70 never went into service because its mission, high-speed,
high-altitude penetration of Soviet airspace wasn't going to work
with the newer classes of SAM going into service.

The B-1A had supersonic dash ability, but it couldn't do it for
very long because of high fuel consumption.  The gains bought by
supersonic dash weren't very great, and the B-1B didn't try for
it.