Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!tek@CS.UCLA.EDU
From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (ATW))
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: B1A vs. B1B
Message-ID: <6257@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 5 May 89 00:34:51 GMT
References: <6185@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 26
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (ATW))

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.
>						>>>Bill<<<

The XB-70 was going to be the ultimate in high-altitude precision
bombing. It did pioneer some titanium construction technologies, which
I have heard were later applied to the SR-71. I don't know much about
the politics involved. But, I think one of the main reasons to cancel
the B-70 was that idea that high-altitude bombing was not the way to
go and that a low-alititude penetration strategy was better. Hence,
the mods made to the B-52 to switch it to that role. I don't know of
any relationship between B-70 and B-1.

Ted Kim                           ARPAnet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu
UCLA Computer Science Department  UUCP:    ...!ucbvax!cs.ucla.edu!tek
3804C Boelter Hall                PHONE:   (213) 206-8696
Los Angeles, CA 90024             ESPnet:  tek@ouija.board