B-1R program

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   
In my quest for information on the USA's next bomber, I ran across the proposed B-1R program.

The B-1R is a proposed bomber which would act as a sort of "weapon truck". It would include freefall and guided munitions, as well as high powered long range air to air missles for BVR. It would feature Mach 2+ speed as a trade off for a 20% reduction in range.

What is YOUR opinion on this programs feasability and usefullness?




posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 09:31 PM
link   
I think that the B-1r has is strong and weak points. You also have to think about RANGE. The original B-1 had a top speed of 900+. With it reaching speeds in excess of mach 2, that would deacrease the range. Unless they have developed a new eco friendly engine. But the decreased payload is a drawback. If the USAF make advancements in bomb technology, like a more concentrated blast (to prevent civilian casulties), then I would say that it would be a decent project.



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   
The B-1 is the most maintenance intensive conventional (read non-stealth) aircraft since the F-111 program. Even after several years of trying to improve that, it's still an intensive aircraft to work on. I had a crew chief tell me once that every B-1 in the USAF inventory had SOME kind of problem with it, pretty much all the time.



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 03:22 AM
link   
I'm sure the stealth maintenance burdens are even more demanding.



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 07:25 AM
link   
They tried to make the B-1 stealth. all atempts were fuitle because it was not shaped for steath capabiliteis.



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by galm 1
They tried to make the B-1 stealth. all atempts were fuitle because it was not shaped for steath capabiliteis.


They never set out to make the B-1 completely stealth. They experimented with it much in the same way they did with the SR-71. they built the models they tested the RCS and they tried to reduce its RCS. The problem is that the stealth is most effective when wings are swept back but the low alt bombing runs it does would be best with wings swept forward and not back. Hence it being a very mixed up plane and these stealth problems are ontop of the electrical generators not supply enough power to run all systems at once. Its a neat plane with its good and even great point but it also has some problems that would add to the cost of any major upgrade program.



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 09:12 AM
link   
The B-1r only had the radar absoring material, or RAM, coating. it is a very fast strike bomber. That is one reason that we should keep it around.



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by galm 1
The B-1r only had the radar absoring material, or RAM, coating. it is a very fast strike bomber. That is one reason that we should keep it around.


I assume you mean the B-1B in that statement? The B-1R has not even been built. The B-1B is very fast infact the fastest bomber in USAF current inventory and able to run off at mach 1.25 if a bombing run turns sour etc.

Also a drawing of the B-1R purposal just for anyones interest.


Also an interesting tid bit of info that I'm wondering how it effects the B-1R idea.

6 external hardpoints for an additional 59,000 lb (27,000 kg) of ordnance (use for weapons currently restricted by START I treaty)

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   
A bit more info from wikipedia on the B-1R/

The B-1R is a proposed replacement for the B-1B fleet.[17] Boeing's director of global strike integration, Rich Parke, was first quoted about the "B-1R" bomber in Air Force Magazine.[18] Parke said the B-1R (R stands for "regional") would be a Lancer with advanced radars, air-to-air missiles, and Pratt & Whitney F119 engines (originally developed for the F-22 Raptor).[17] Its new top speed — Mach 2.2 — would be purchased at the price of a 20% reduction of the B-1B's combat range. This proposal would involve modifying existing aircraft. The FB-22 and YF-23-based design are alternative proposals.


A mach 2.2 speed would be a great boost from 1.25. I somehow feel as though this idea got shelved at the same time renewed FB-22 purposal and YF-23.



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   
In my opinion, a bomber with ATA capabilities would constitute the development of an entirely new missile.

The aircraft it large, so it can fit a large radar. That means that ultra long range ATAMs are very feasible.

The USAF is still trying to develop a flying swiss army knife.



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   
A supercruising reduced signature penetration bomber with a big payload and BVR AAM's has obvious advantages and would be hard as hell to stop. I liked the B-1R idea, but the B-1 has always had a rep as a hangar queen, and I'm not sure how enthusiatic the Air Force is going to be about the idea.

I haven't heard much more about it since the idea was originally revealed.



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
I'm sure the stealth maintenance burdens are even more demanding.


That would be why I said "conventional (read non stealth) aircraft. However, most of the maintenance intensiveness of a stealth is the stealth coating itself.



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm only like 60% on this, but I think that the original B-1 sported no stealth features. However the B-1B featured some RCS reducing airframe modifications - no RAM. I think its just its shape. Public RCS is about 1m squared.



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   
They were more RCS reducing features. However, they lowered the speed of the B-1 even farther. The blended curves, and inlets are designed to lower the RCS somewhat. The B-1 has an RCS that's roughly 1% of a B-52, but only from a head on radar shot. From other angles the B-1 has a much larger RCS.



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Just a stupid question, but what would we be building this for?

You read about these pie-in-the-sky weapons systems, each more Star Wars than the next, and they are great toys for big boys with stars on their hats, but other than being vast sink holes for taxpayer's dollars converted into MIC gravy, what purpose do they serve?

Do we need yet another staggeringly over-priced, super-tech bomber that is so precious and delicate it sits in the hanger while 50 yr old B-52s do the real-world job of bombing our hapless third-world adversaries of the moment?

The AF is by far the worst offender in hi-tech boondoggles; we are so over-teched and over-armed that we've been chasing our own tail for decades.

It's exactly the same disconnected mindset as adolescent video gamers who spend $3000+ dollars a year so they can have the latest, coolest rig, with blue-neon-glowing heatsink fans, for playing the newest version of BloodSplatterDeathRace.

[edit on 9-4-2007 by gottago]



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
They never set out to make the B-1 completely stealth.


- Well I guess that depends on your definition of "completely stealth".

The B1a was as just about as "completely stealth" as it was possible to be when it was designed.

The later B1b was also developed to be much stealthier than the B1a.

It might not be in the same league as the B2 but the B1b is still relatively speaking a very stealthy plane.


The problem is that the stealth is most effective when wings are swept back but the low alt bombing runs it does would be best with wings swept forward and not back.


- Actually for the 'normal' high speed & low altitude penetration mission envisioned for this type the wings would be swept back to create the best conditions - particularly in relation to 'low gust response' at speed etc etc.

The B1 may be dated when compared to the B2 but how many B2s can even the USA afford - and more to the point how many likely missions require a B2?

I have to say I find the idea of a mach 2 warmed over B1 extremely unlikely........especially as IIRC the only reason it is now limited to a max speed (at altitude) of mach 1.6 is beacuse they removed the variable inlet mechanisms originally installed on the B1a's engines (the B1a was mach 2 capable at altitude).
I doubt it would be as simple as fitting the original inlet configuration as the intakes are a major element of the stealth performance such as it is on the B1b.

Far more likely IMO would be a sacrifice of a little speed for more payload.



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   
The B-1R would have the F119 engine, the F-22's have a fixed inlet and can go above Mach 2. Variable geometry may not be needed if the engine is designed to perform without it.

Personally I think this is one of those upgrades that's nice to have but not one that is necessary. At the cost of eliminating other 'all new' "Interim Bomber" designs I say no thanks...

[edit on 9-4-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
The B-1B is limited in top speed because of all the modifications they had to make over the years made it overly heavy, and reduced the speed. Then they had to modify the modifications to get some speed back. That's why it's so underpowered. It only has three generators, where most large bombers carry 4, because that was one of the weight saving measures used to get it back up to over Mach 1.



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   
While the B-1R does have some strong points, I don't consider it a serious contender for any of the future bomber/strike aircraft programs. The big issue with the B-1 is reliability and maintainability. Right now the B-1 is more or less the problem child of the fleet with the most serious maintance requirements of any US bomber. People often speak of the B-2 as high-maintance, but it really connot be compared with the B-1.

The issue with the B-2 is soley LO characteristics. The planes are still flyable and capable of delivering weapons against an assign target. The B-1 on the other hand is often in a non-flyable state. The last major B-1 grounding occured because of concerns about the wings breaking off in flight. The Overall B-1 design isn't reliable enought to replace the B-52 as the backbone of the US bomber fleet.

Tim



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by Canada_EH
They never set out to make the B-1 completely stealth.


- Well I guess that depends on your definition of "completely stealth".

The B1a was as just about as "completely stealth" as it was possible to be when it was designed.

The later B1b was also developed to be much stealthier than the B1a.

It might not be in the same league as the B2 but the B1b is still relatively speaking a very stealthy plane.


Well maybe I should be clear that the B-1a wasn't designed for complete stealth because the designers knew that they could reduce the RCS but not to the point where it could effectively evade the modern radars. The B-1B design was finalized at the same time the ATB (advanced tech bomber) was at the very least being designed. Never once did the design and redesign team set out to make any of the B-1 version complete stealth. Ofcourse you can debate when a plane or RCS becomes stealth. But in my opinion from the facts I've read and seen the B-1B's RCS isn't on par with any stealth plane. Its common knowledge that they tried methods of lowering its RCS but they did not set out from the begining to do that.





top topics
 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join