Key Points and Summary – The North American XB-70 Valkyrie was a technologically ambitious US Air Force bomber prototype developed in the late 1950s, designed to fly at speeds exceeding Mach 3 at 70,000 feet.
-The aircraft’s incredible speed was intended to make it invulnerable to Soviet interceptors and air defenses.
-However, the program was canceled in 1961 for several key reasons.
-These included its high cost, the rapid improvement of Soviet surface-to-air missile technology which questioned its survivability, and a strategic shift in the Pentagon towards Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) as the primary means of nuclear deterrence.
The Great XB-70 Bomber Failure
In the 1950s, North American Aviation engineered an ultra high-speed XB-70 Valkyrie bomber capable of hitting speeds greater than Mach 3, a development which suggests credible reasons why a supplement or replacement for the B-52 may have made sense.
The prototype looked sleek, smooth, and fast and intended to introduce new levels of nuclear weapons attack possibility as the US surged further into the Cold War.
The Valkyrie could cruise thousands of miles at 70,000 feet but was ultimately canceled in 1961. The speed of the aircraft was intended to ensure it could transit from one radar aperture or field of view to another while eluding enemy air defenses.
The aircraft’s speed also meant it could avoid being followed or “tracked” by any interceptor aircraft.
At the time, there were no Soviet aircraft capable of tracking the Valkyrie, so the concept seemed to make strategic and tactical sense.
And yet, the XB-70 failed. Why?
High-Speed Mach 3 1960s Bomber
It is interesting to see the long-term, historical emphasis placed on speed as a critical survivability tactic, as the ability to travel so quickly between radar fields of view is a key reason why modern hypersonic weapons are so challenging to track.
The exact reasons why the prototype was canceled may be difficult to discern, yet published accounts refer to budget considerations to some extent.
Perhaps it would have made great sense for the Air Force to operate a supersonic Mach 3 bomber to support or even replace the B-52 with an ability to penetrate enemy air defenses and conduct air attacks deep within enemy airspace.
Summed Up in 4 Words: The XB-70 Failed Miserably
However, the rapid arrival of advanced Soviet Air defenses during these decades of the Cold War, modern versions of which are still regarded as among some of the best in the world, may have raised concerns about the continued survivability of the aircraft as well.
Russian air defenses have a long history of growing effectiveness and have been upgraded for decades. They likely influenced the development of modern S-400 and S-500 systems, which are increasingly capable of tracking and targeting higher-speed aircraft, conducting node-to-node digital networking, and targeting aircraft at longer ranges on a more significant number of frequencies.
Along with budget considerations and a changing threat landscape, there appear to have been other strategic factors as well.
The arrival of ICBMs in the 1950s and 1960s led some decision-makers to think that nuclear-armed bombers might be redundant or less necessary. This view is mainly extinct these days at the Pentagon, given the near-universal belief in a critical need for a full air, ground, and undersea nuclear triad.
Pentagon Need for Nuclear Triad
This kind of thinking seems quite significant, in retrospect, given today’s belief in a fully operational and ready nuclear “triad.” The conceptual framework of a nuclear triad rests on several things, including the risk of an enemy “bolt-out-of-the-blue” or massive, overwhelming attack.
The arrival of ICBMs also meant the Soviets would also operate ICBMs. These weapons could potentially be launched “en masse” against the US to overwhelm US defenses with a massive attack or salvo of incoming missiles.
For this reason, US thinkers crafting and refining a Strategic Deterrence Posture recognized that an air-dropped nuclear threat was still necessary to ensure potential adversaries were held at risk from the air and sea domains.
If US ICBMs and land defenses were destroyed or overwhelmed, the US could ensure a massive retaliatory strike capability from undersea and the air. This strategic equation still exists today and proves vital to the Pentagon as it seeks to provide a potential adversary does not think a first-strike nuclear attack would be conceivable in any way.
All of this meant one thing: the XB-70 bomber was toast.
About the Author: Kris Osborn
Kris Osborn is the President of Warrior Maven – Center for Military Modernization. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a highly qualified expert in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.
Russia’s Bomber Forces
Tu-22M3: The Bomber Ukraine Hit With Drones
