The Valkyrie's Little Brother

"f86sabre" (f86sabre) 02/22/2014 at 10:15 • Filed to: Planelopnik, XF-108, XB-70

22

82

In the late 1950s, the USAF was all about speed and altitude. The Mach 2 capable B-58 Hustler started flying in 1956 and entered service in 1960. The Mach 2.3 capable F-106 Delta Dart entered service in 1959. That wasn't enough. Planners wanted more. They wanted planes that would go farther than the B-58 and much, much faster.

The XB-70 takes to the skies

The Mach 3+ XB-70 Valkyrie was under development and promised to push the state of the art beyond anything that was flying in the world. Mach 3 requires thrust levels well beyond what it takes to go Mach 2 and it takes a lot of fuel to make that power. That means a large aircraft. To keep weight down, and to deal with the high skin temperatures the plane would see, exotic materials were being developed such as steel brazed honeycomb panels and new ways were being developed to work with titanium.

The XB-70 and XF-108's ejection capsule being tested

The mindset of the times in the US dictated that if we were working on a technology then so were the Soviets. That meant we needed a high speed interceptor with capabilities similar to the XB-70. We wanted to intercept high speed Soviet bombers as far from North American targets as possible. That meant range and power. The natural solution was to piggyback off of XB-70 technology and develop an interceptor with similar performance characteristics.

Here a YB-58 tests the J-39 engine used on the XB-70 and proposed for the XF-108

The XF-108 Rapier program was started in 1955 by North American Aviation, who was also building the XB-70, as an answer to the Air Force's desire to obtain a very high speed interceptor and bomber escort. The aircraft utilized a number of design features that were common to the Valkyrie. The XF-108 would use the same 29,000 pound thrust afterburning GE J-39-GE-3 engines as the XB-70 as well as the escape pods and many of the advanced materials. A number of the aerodynamic tricks employed on the XB-70 would also see their way into the Rapier's design. These included drooped wing tips to take advantage of compression lift and a number of design feature that were intended to improve directional stability.

While North American was working on design refinements a new variable entered into the equation. The Soviets were able to show that they had the technology to deploy nuclear weapons via a ballistic missile. This meant that there would be little need to deploy a large fleet of bombers against the US to achieve their goals. Missiles could do the same job, for less cost and with little to no hope of interception. In addition, the Soviets paranoia about the development of the XB-70, and other fast and high flying aircraft, led them to develop significant ground to air missile capability. As the 1960s approached funding for the XB-70 was cut by Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy to allow for two airframes and some research flying and the XF-108 was canceled all together.

The XF-108 never made it to the point where an aircraft was built. All we have now, at least what is available on the open internet, are pictures of the full scale mockup and artists renditions. If it would have flown it would surely have won the hearts of aviation enthusiasts in the same way the XB-70 and SR-71 did. It was a good looking plane and everyone loves the speed demons..

Credits:

Images via GIS: kavok.com.br, free-images.gatag.net, Wikipedia.org, milaviate.com, survivecity.com

Information: National Museum of the United States Air Force Fact Sheet, Wikipedia.org, milaviate.com

For Sweden > f86sabre 02/22/2014 at 10:23

26

Every day I'm Hustlin'

Goshen, formerly Darkcode > f86sabre 02/22/2014 at 10:37

0

Didn't know a mockup had actually been built.

SnowBallin > f86sabre 02/22/2014 at 11:25

7

Great write up. It's always fun to read about obscure Cold War era projects

kschang > f86sabre 02/22/2014 at 12:23

1

You can see how bits and pieces of this ended up in F/B-111 and eventually F-15

aedion > For Sweden 02/22/2014 at 12:59

0

I got to see one at Pima, it was awesome.

daender > f86sabre 02/22/2014 at 15:59

4

I see a lot of MiG-25/31 in this design.

BigGatorChris > daender 02/22/2014 at 16:34

1

Pretty sure the 25 was a reaction to the XB-70.

Maxxuman > f86sabre 02/22/2014 at 16:35

3

johnygezony > daender 02/22/2014 at 16:42

0

Ohhh Yeah, One Of My favorite Cold War Aircraft. So cool.

wilkers > f86sabre 02/22/2014 at 16:53

10

Canadians had the same idea

jimmyznutz > daender 02/22/2014 at 16:57

1

The Rapier was a full 10 years earlier than the MIG.

Brutal Calves > daender 02/22/2014 at 16:59

0

Also reminds me of the Tu-22M.

Nuno Miguel Aguiar > f86sabre 02/22/2014 at 16:59

1

I wonder how many of the engineers that worked on the Avro Arrow made it on to this project just to have it cancelled as well.

bafazane2 > For Sweden 02/22/2014 at 17:30

0

...Hustlin' and Smiling...

ohnobeesafraidofbees > f86sabre 02/22/2014 at 17:31

0

*heavy breathing*

Racing Archivist > f86sabre 02/22/2014 at 17:32

3

reminds me of the movie Firefox with Clint Eastwood.

Nitzer Ebblestone > kschang 02/22/2014 at 17:44

0

Similarities to the North American Aviation A-5 Vigilante also.

Vettedrmr > wilkers 02/22/2014 at 17:44

0

Arrow was only about Mach 2.3, IIRC. It's funny reading about all the conspiracy stories with the CIA/FBI/Pentagon corrupting the Canadian gov't. to kill the Arrow.

ttyymmnn > f86sabre 02/22/2014 at 18:05

1

Congrats on the FP bump. Interesting piece.

KlutchKicker13 > f86sabre 02/22/2014 at 18:06

0

!PLEASE HELP!

I don't know if any of you remember but a while back, Jalopnik posted a video which was a silent montage of planes taking off and landing filmed in 1969. Only thing I can remember is that it looked absolutely BEAUTIFUL and was filmed by a boy who used to sneak into the airport to film the planes. I really want to find this video again so if any of you remember it, please reply with a link to the post/video.

Thanks

mallthus > wilkers 02/22/2014 at 18:13

0

Ahh...the Arrow. Came for this (and one other)...

kws103 > daender 02/22/2014 at 18:19

2

The 25 was in reaction to our approach of building high-speed, high-altitude bombers (the irony being that we cancelled the program leaving the MiG-25 with nothing to intercept). It's interesting to note that with the MiG-25 (and later variants), the US was forced to consider high-speed, high-altitude options to intercept the interceptor.

What wasn't clearly understood at the time was that, at those speeds and altitudes, successful intercept geometry shrinks dramatically. In fact, if you're not already in the right position to intercept to start with, the likelihood of your getting there in time to do anything is very nearly zero.

mallthus > f86sabre 02/22/2014 at 18:21

4

The TSR-2 offered similar capabilities and was similarly cancelled.

JimmyNoVA > KlutchKicker13 02/22/2014 at 18:25

1

It was at LaGuardia. Here's the link: http://jalopnik.com/two-kids-broke…

TheJacobJones > f86sabre 02/22/2014 at 18:45

0

Cold war was such a great time for airplanes.

Flyjax > For Sweden 02/22/2014 at 18:54

0

+1

Wild_Horse_of_the_Osage > f86sabre 02/22/2014 at 19:05

3

My brother and I visited the USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton just this past weekend. Upon looking at the XB-70 standing head and shoulders above the other planes in the hangar (including the XF-23 stealth prototype), he commented, "Only one thing about the XB-70 is still classified: the cost."

4thwall > f86sabre 02/22/2014 at 19:12

0

Awwwww man, so cool.
Love those designs.
Great article, thanks!!

f86sabre > daender 02/22/2014 at 19:29

1

The Mig is the only Mach 3 intercepted to be deployed in the world. It can only achieve that speed for a short while and it is murder on the engined, but they can do it.

If I was given the chance to hoon a Soviet era jet the MiG-25 would be the one.

f86sabre > ttyymmnn 02/22/2014 at 19:30

1

Somehow manged two today. I just put together the thing on the Love Boat for grins for Oppo. I worked on this one.

ttyymmnn > f86sabre 02/22/2014 at 19:33

1

I've got something that I've been working on while I'm out of town. I'll finish it tonight and post it on Monday morning. I'm trying to avoid any news and most of Oppo because I don't want to know what happened in the Olympics men's hockey. I'm hoping to watch it tomorrow when I get home.

f86sabre > ttyymmnn 02/22/2014 at 19:34

0

Cool. I will be looking forward to it.

f86sabre > wilkers 02/22/2014 at 19:37

4

Brits too.

seaalex > daender 02/22/2014 at 19:47

0

"I see a lot of MiG-25/31 in this design."

You mean as in its a two seat fighter plane with two engines. After that you might want to take a better look at the pictures you posted.

Kevc2002 > f86sabre 02/22/2014 at 20:16

0

Looks a lot like the Avro Arrow.

Mark Out West > Wild_Horse_of_the_Osage 02/22/2014 at 20:30

1

Not anymore. There's some NASA report out on the Internet developed in conjunction with North American itemizing the cost down to the penny. As suspected, it was billions back in the early 60s - a staggering sum given the times.

Also, it's not a J-39, but a J-93 afterburning turbojet. Thing was originally going to utilize boron-laced kerosene to make the range numbers. Luckily, the compressive lift design of the XB-70 made the range estimates, but barely.

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > Wild_Horse_of_the_Osage 02/22/2014 at 20:35

1

I volunteer there, and every time I'm in the R&D gallery I am still amazed by the XB-70.

If it's not the definition of Bad-Ass, I don't what is.

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > f86sabre 02/22/2014 at 20:38

2

Kudos, Sir.

Excellent piece. I have more useless trivia to entertain and delight visitors when I'm volunteering at the NMUSAF in the R&D gallery with the XB.

And by entertain and delight, I mean bore to death. All the plane-nuts, which are nearly all men, think that stuff is great. Women just roll their eyes and say, "Oh, okay." and walk away.

FelixScout > daender 02/22/2014 at 20:38

1

And I see a great deal more A-5 Vigilante in it, which was also an North American product. But I see what you see as well.

f86sabre > ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) 02/22/2014 at 20:48

0

Thanks.

If a certain Opponaut happened to visit the museum with some of his engineers would it be possible to get a tour?

zipfuel > wilkers 02/22/2014 at 21:05

0

And there are people still whining about it's cancelation to this day.....my personal favorite was the guy who was suggesting we should resurrect it instead of buying the F35!

I want to meet one of these people just so I can keep saying "ICBM" at them until they turn blue in the face

It was super cool tech and I think the politicians deciding to destroy all the designs and tooling was a massive waste of R&D but the plane was totally obsolete by the time it flew

FelixScout > Nitzer Ebblestone 02/22/2014 at 21:07

0

Which seems to have predated the XF-108 by a couple years.

Turbineguy: Nom de Zoom > daender 02/22/2014 at 21:09

0

The front section reminds me of the RA-5 Vigilante.

Turbineguy: Nom de Zoom > ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) 02/22/2014 at 21:18

2

Years ago I ferried a plane out to Wright-Patt (actually a nearby GA field) for a USAF major that had just bought it here in CT. While I was there I got an escorted tour of the museum, including some areas that normally aren't open to the public. I'd read lots about the Valk, but seeing it in person was nothing short of amazing.

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > f86sabre 02/22/2014 at 21:30

2

If you have base access, you may visit the Presidential and R&D galleries whenever you have the time.

Without access, you will have to take the shuttles over. I would call ahead for times, and they usually don't take reservations, so you'd all have to get there early to get seats if you have a large group.

If you visit on a Tuesday or Sunday, I can meet up with your group. I work the rest of the week.

The museum does provide some guided tours, usually at the main campus, I think they start at 1300. There aren't any guided tours in the Pres/RD galleries. Though there are always voluteers over there to answer questions.

Let me know if you do visit, it would be fun to meet up if it works out.

burpbeepburp > f86sabre 02/22/2014 at 21:45

2

But Honey, it's Supersonic...Oh, you're going to get something to drink? OK, see you later.

(Me and my wife or daughter at the aviation museum every time)

ononeathome > f86sabre 02/22/2014 at 21:46

0

It's always fun to read about fast planes. What this article does not mention, and the author may not know, is that the Valkyrie was NEVER meant to go into production. The Valkyrie was purposely designed to MAKE the USSR spend as much money as possible, and help push them into insolvency, to build a counter measure. It worked very well for this purpose.

Another interesting point was made by Clarence "Kelly" Johnson. He made it clear that he could build a faster plane than the SR-71 but that it would cost too much for the extra speed. This is very much like the MiG. The MiG was actually able to go faster, one time. As another person, in the comments implied, the engines could do it for one flight. After the Mach 3+ flight both engines had to be Replaced, not re-built, Replaced. You could very well think of this MiG as a human guided missile; go as fast as you can, destroy your target, get build another one.

f86sabre > ononeathome 02/22/2014 at 21:52

1

I don't know if the intent was to make the Soviets spend money, but it certainly had that effect. Same can be said for projects going the other way.

f86sabre > kws103 02/22/2014 at 21:54

0

That is part of th reason that they never had much luck intercepting a Blackbird.

Incognigro > kws103 02/22/2014 at 22:20

0

The 25 was in reaction to our approach of building high-speed, high-altitude bombers (the irony being that we cancelled the program leaving the MiG-25 with nothing to intercept). It's interesting to note that with the MiG-25 (and later variants), the US was forced to consider high-speed, high-altitude options to intercept the interceptor.

Intercepception

Mark Lipsinic > johnygezony 02/23/2014 at 04:21

0

Too bad the Mig-25 was a piece of junk.

Mr Joshua > wilkers 02/23/2014 at 05:36

0

Don't make me cry. I still shed tears every time I think of what the US did to push the Canadians into canceling the Arrow program and the shit politics and thuggery behind it all. The only good thing that came of it was that many of the best brains behind the Arrow went into the Apollo program and some even went on to help design Concord. There were so many Canadians there at the top the Apollo program that I would even go a step further in saying that without these incredible brains, the US might not have won the space race.

Ahhh Arrow, the plane that could have but was not allowed to.

KlutchKicker13 > JimmyNoVA 02/23/2014 at 06:51

0

Ok man thanks a lot :)

KillerBee > ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) 02/23/2014 at 09:16

0

I've visited frequently since I was a young lad, and the XB-70 has always been fascinating to me. She's beautiful, and still my favorite exhibit.

elvinrivera > f86sabre 02/23/2014 at 09:36

0

A similar mindset produced a Mach 4 recon drone based on A12/SR71 technology called the D21B. It had no landing gear so upon return over friendly territory it would jettison its "hatch" containing the camera gear and other electronics, then self destruct.

f86sabre > elvinrivera 02/23/2014 at 09:57

0

They have one at the Pima Air Museum. Neat looking aircraft.

Brian, The Life of > f86sabre 02/23/2014 at 10:44

1

Dude, this is fantastic! Thanks so much for this write up!

Drakkon- Most Glorious and Upright Person of Genius > wilkers 02/23/2014 at 11:46

0

Russians spy bastards!

The Mig-25 saved a decade of development because of what they stole from AVRO.

SgtHop > f86sabre 02/23/2014 at 11:49

0

I believe there's one at Evergreen in Oregon, too.

Josh McCullough > f86sabre 02/23/2014 at 14:35

0

There are a ton of typos and grammatical errors in this article, but I liked it.

f86sabre > Josh McCullough 02/23/2014 at 15:14

0

I will take a look at it and will try and see what needs to be fixed.

user314 > f86sabre 02/23/2014 at 15:19

1

The Soviets also tried to build their own copy of the Valk, called the Sukhoi T-4 . Out of four started, only one was completed, and it's currently at the museum in Monino.

f86sabre > user314 02/23/2014 at 15:31

0

Interesting. Funny tha tthey didn't fly it until the 70s. That said, the Soviet's reserves of titanium would have been useful for something like this.

schneakers > f86sabre 02/23/2014 at 16:21

0

As someone who lives nearby, I'd suggest you dedicate a whole day if you want to go there. Three gigantic hangars packed to the rafters (quite literally) with baller ass planes, and a silo full of NASA rockets means you could spend two days looking at all of the very interesting stuff. My favorite on my last visit was the 'party suits' from the Vietnam era, but I'm not sure if they are still on display or not.

Bluecold > f86sabre 02/23/2014 at 16:43

0

That's quite a lot of ailerons

f86sabre > schneakers 02/23/2014 at 18:13

0

We took the kids last spring. I got to go over to the restoration hangar while they went to the R&D hangar. Probably the best aviation museum in the world.

http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/museum-of-the-…

f86sabre > Bluecold 02/23/2014 at 18:19

0

I think they are typically referred to as flaperons on deltawinged jets, but yes, that is a lot!

elvinrivera > wilkers 02/23/2014 at 18:25

0

I found a movie about the AVRO Arrow on CBC (Canadian TV) with Dan Akroyd among others. Dramatized non-fiction (an oxymoron if there ever was one) but not half bad for what it is. Watch it on YouTube.

elvinrivera > wilkers 02/23/2014 at 18:46

0

Here's a promotional film used to sell the AVRO Arrow. Vintage footage and dramatic dialog in the best '50s style.

johnygezony > Mark Lipsinic 02/23/2014 at 19:25

0

Rationale?

Mark Lipsinic > johnygezony 02/23/2014 at 20:30

0

Horrible welding instead of riveting.

Engines have to be fully rebuilt after going Mach 3.

With a full fuel load the Mig-25 can not turn more then 3Gs or else the wings will rip off.

Does that qualify?

johnygezony > Mark Lipsinic 02/23/2014 at 21:44

0

haha yes, yes it does.

SamTheGeek > f86sabre 02/23/2014 at 21:57

0

It still amazes me how much the B-58 resembles the B-1, especially in the nose. It was a plane twenty years ahead of its time.

SamTheGeek > daender 02/23/2014 at 22:01

0

Rumors have it that the MiG-25's design was influenced more by highly-placed sources in Avro's CF-105 program. However, because there was a certain amount of technical exchange between the programs, its possible that some influence came from the semi-secret -108 program, too.

f86sabre > SamTheGeek 02/23/2014 at 22:06

1

I suppose aerodynamics and the side by side flight deck dictate a certain form. Both were designed with Mach 2 in mind. Both fuselages use area rule so you get that sexy coke bottle look.

Mark Lipsinic > user314 02/24/2014 at 02:28

0

Why innovate when you can copy.

user314 > ononeathome 02/24/2014 at 11:10

0

is that the Valkyrie was NEVER meant to go into production.

Can you provide some citations for that? The USAF poured immense resources into the XB-70 and it's associtated projects, at least until ICBMs made the plane redundant, so I'd be really surprised to find they had no plans for production.

my car smells like crayons > daender 02/24/2014 at 12:00

0

"We'll make the Avro Arrow- no wait! It will be better than the Arrow, it will have two seats!"

user314 > Bluecold 02/24/2014 at 14:55

0

It's quite a lot of airplane.

user314 > elvinrivera 02/24/2014 at 15:03

0

Yep, the D-21 was to be launched off the back of a modified A-12, and sent into areas the Blackbirds couldn't get to safely. The whole program had issues though; there was an aerodynamic cone over the drone's inlet that was to be jettisoned prior to launch, but they kept shattering and peppering the M-12 mothership with debris; then in '66 a D-21 hit the tail of the M-12, destroying both craft, and leading to the death of the launch officer.

Rick Brasche > elvinrivera 02/25/2014 at 15:03

0

sadly the D21 was too dangerous to deploy and took down one of the motherships.

http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster…

elvinrivera > f86sabre 03/02/2014 at 02:55

1

The F-108 Rapier lived on, sort of, in the A-5 Vigilante for the Navy. I quote from Wikipedia:

Even as the XF-108 program was progressing well, there were signs which would ultimately lead to its eventual cancellation. Unconfirmed Soviet bomber threats, the overwhelming trend toward offensive and defensive nuclear missiles in the late 1950s and early 1960s, as well as rising costs, contributed to the termination of the XF-108. The cancellation was announced on 23 September. North American continued refining the design through 1960 in hopes that the program might be revived. Despite the extra money and time spent on the Rapier, it was not wholly in vain; the North American A-5 Vigilante supersonic reconnaissance bomber developed for the U.S. Navy retained the fuselage/weapon package and systems design of the Rapier. In many ways the Vigilante could be seen as the successful application of the Rapier design principles in a Mach-2 supersonic design.

While the Vigilante served in the attack and reconnaissance roles, its design and planform was a direct descendant of the earlier WS-202 or XF-108 Rapier Mach 3 fighter, designed originally to escort the North American XB-70 Valkyrie bomber. Although both experimental programs were ultimately unsuccessful, the Soviet 's Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 "Foxbat" interceptor was greatly influenced by American advances in high speed flight. Although there is a superficial resemblance to the F-108/Vigilante configuration, the MiG-25 was an entirely unique design.