Comments by "TheThirdMan" (@thethirdman225) on "Why the futuristic B-58 was useless before it even took to the sky..." video.

@Bluee95 'It was useless but I don't care because I think it's cool.' 'It was cool but it doesn't matter because it was useless.'
2
@Bluee95 Agreed.
2
@Dbusdriver71 That's the trouble with capability-based planning. It ignores strategic requirements. There are many examples of aircraft with exceptional specifications which have been left on the drawing board or in the hangar because their cost didn't justify their use or because there was minimal need for it in the overall strategy. In the 1950s, manufacturers were constantly pushing the limits of aerodynamics, engine power and systems complexity. These things were - and are - expensive and demanding to develop. So if the mission and strategy is fuzzy, why continue to develop it? The spec sheet simply has no answer to this. If the aircraft didn't have a clearly defined role in its strategic planning then its future was always going to be under threat. Since there was never a bomber that was developed either from this or in the same vein. The FB-111 was probably the best example but, despite its problems, it was much cheaper and still a threat as late as the 1990s. The FB-111 was an example of how the range of an aircraft adds massive costs to the development of the aircraft. The British TSR2, even more so. The B-58 was bigger than either of them and extending the range of an aircraft like a B-58 would have been a major headache. The 1950s was an extremely fertile period in aeronautical engineering terms. You only have to look at some of the wacky ideas, very few of which were actually proceeded with. Again, this was frequently the result of an idea that didn't fit with the strategic objectives of the USAF. The B-52 did. The B-58 didn't. That's why one is still in service and the other isn't.
1
@WhiteOwlOnFire_XXX If it wasn’t useless, it would have lasted longer than it did.
1