B-1R program

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Natalie (Intelgurl) asked me to relay the following:

__________________________________________

There have already been some informative posts covering the B-1R, here are two:

USAF: Long Range Strike Options Considered

USAF's Next Generation Long Range Strike A/C

The Long Range Strike, Global Strike and Interim Bomber programs have all been discussed thoroughly here on ATS. We know that the DoD has allocated $5 billion to bankroll the defense industry's preliminary efforts on the LRS.
New LRS Bomber Fleet Given $5 Billion Down Payment

Currently there are unsubstantiated rumors of a black LRSA-X (Long Range Strike Aircraft - X Plane) program. What form the future/interim long range strike system takes is anybody's guess at this point.

Apparently it is NOT the Lockheed FB-22.
The following links substantiate industry rumors that the FB-22 is no longer being considered an option:

"...in late January (2007) Air Force officials changed direction and began saying privately that they were putting FB-22 plans on hold."
"Decisions Made - But Perhaps Not Final" - Washington Watch, Page 4

"At the behest of Congress, the Air Force considered various long-range strike options and seemed to be promoting a two-seat, enlarged version of the F-22 fighter, called the FB-22, for this purpose. The FB-22 now seems dead in the water."
"Long-Range Strike: The Future" - Air Force Magazine, Vol. 89, No. 3


Nor is it a hypersonic vehicle, as Congressional appropriations restricted
the Hypersonic Technology Vehicle Program (the FALCON) to "non-weapons related research"... don't ya just love that?

Source: USAF 2006/2007 Budget Estimates: Research Development, Test and Evaluation Descriptive Summaries, VOl. 2, page 802

With the non-stealthiness of the B-1's airframe it is probably safe to say that it is not really being considered seriously for as an LRS contender.
Plus I have heard from more than one high up USAF source that the US Air Force brass would rather clean Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's toilets on their hands and knees than take a step back with upgraded B-1's as their future bombing solution.

In all seriousness, for the 2018 LRS system I predict we are looking at a Northrop design, probably manned - but I'm just guessing.



[edit on 4/10/2007 by bios]




posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Thanks bios for provide the links. I had remebered seeing them before but couldn't find them so my posts where more based on the knowledge then the linked facts. I do think its safe to say the B-1R purposal is one of the many concepts that will never be flown also no one cared to think that the START 1 treaty and limited the payloads of the B-1 so that it couldn't be flowen with muntions on the hard points.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
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.


From what I understand, the Mach 1.25 B-1B has the same thrust to weight ratio as the Mach 2 bomber Tu-160 Blackjack - ~ 0.37.

The reason why the B-1B cannot exceed Mach 1.25 was because the B-1B had its variable geometry intakes removed during design, limiting the available upper limit - the engines can get it to Mach 2 but there would be some serious damage done in the process.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Despite the fact that the B-1B can only 900 mph, or mach 1.25, it is still the fastest bomber in the USAF inventory. The B-1R will change that.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by galm 1
The B-1R will change that.


Would of changed that. From the information links that Bios provided plus the reading and posts that I've done I think the card are stacked againest the possiblity of a B-1R. It was a neat thought but if the USAF wants to fufill a new bomber mission it makes alot of sence to create a new airframe to fill the role.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   
I have done my own study of the future LRS platform. I believe the USAF is trying for new capibilities in this bomber, but at an acceptable price. The big goal here is to finally develop a true sucessor to the B-52 Stratofortress, which has served since 1955, making it well over 50 years old.

If we hope to get a real look at the next generation bomber, I think we should be looking at the heavy airfraim comcepts that are being studied by Air Force Materials Command. My personal choice would be some version of the flying wing. However, I don't necessarly think another B-2 is the best solution. We need something to compliment the stealth bomber as a strategic penetrator. The new plane should focus on increased payload, and improved RM&S.

Tim



posted on Apr, 13 2007 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01
I have done my own study of the future LRS platform. I believe the USAF is trying for new capibilities in this bomber, but at an acceptable price. The big goal here is to finally develop a true sucessor to the B-52 Stratofortress, which has served since 1955, making it well over 50 years old.Tim


I thought that the B-2 was the replacement for the B-52?



posted on Apr, 13 2007 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Ghost01 the easiest way to accomplish a higher payload is with more lift. The easiest way to accomplish more lift without vastly increasing size is increase speed.

-my point-

A b-1 sized hypersonic bomber would generate so much lift at high speed that it could carry an enormous payload.

In my opinion we should go with a hypersonic bomber. It cant outrun missiles but it can get away fast enough to evade them.



posted on Apr, 13 2007 @ 10:39 PM
link   
But the higher payload, the less lift and less speed you get, because of higher weight and drag issues. Sooner or later it becomes a diminishing returns issue. Eventually you're going to have so much weight that no amount of speed will get you lift.



posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by galm 1
I thought that the B-2 was the replacement for the B-52?


It was, the problem is the congress have never allocated enough money to buy the number of planes required to replace all of the B-52's. The easy solution would be to buy MORE B-2's!


Tim



posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
Ghost01 the easiest way to accomplish a higher payload is with more lift. The easiest way to accomplish more lift without vastly increasing size is increase speed.


I Disagree on you point of raising the speed! The Easiest and BEST way to accomplish more lift is to Increase the wing area of the aircraft.

If we use your idea, Boeing could have put F-104 wings on a 747, but with a body design for SR-71 like speeds. It would work, but it's far from the easiest or best solution.




A b-1 sized hypersonic bomber would generate so much lift at high speed that it could carry an enormous payload.

In my opinion we should go with a hypersonic bomber. It cant outrun missiles but it can get away fast enough to evade them.


Whereare you planning on getting that kind of money? By the time the prototype is ready for rollout, the whole US Congress will be at you door with pitchforks asking for their money back!


I don't even think they'd let you try that with the Black Budget! Do you have any idea of the technical challenges and risks involved? My firend your asking for a research budget bigger then the whole SDI porgram at its peak level of spending.

You second problem is technology. We don't know if this within techinal reach at the moment. We have never even attempted to drop bombs from a hypersonic platform before, Noone knows how the shockwave might affect the trjectory of the bombs. You would have to go to a guided missile platform to have a chance to hit the target.

In my oppinion the BEST way to get more lift without making the plane larger is to increase the Wing Area! For this we need a design like the B-2. 100% of the B-2's surface area is a part of the wing, which contributes to the lift of the airframe.

The B-52 has a 185 ft. wing span. Now if we built a flying wing with a shape like the A-12 Avenger II that had Exactly the same wing span as the B-52, the plane would have a total wing are of 8556.25 sq. ft. That would give us a plane that could easily be built to carry 4X the B-52's payload at a slightly faster speed and much langer range. (Yes I actually did the Math).

Tim

[edit on 4/14/2007 by Ghost01]



posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01

Originally posted by galm 1
I thought that the B-2 was the replacement for the B-52?


It was, the problem is the congress have never allocated enough money to buy the number of planes required to replace all of the B-52's. The easy solution would be to buy MORE B-2's!


Tim


I know that the B-2 costs around 2.2 billion dollars, but do you think that congress should raise the funding for the B-2 project. Or do you think that they should increase funding for a more cost effective bomber to replace the B-2. I think that the B-2 is fine the way it is.



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by galm 1
I know that the B-2 costs around 2.2 billion dollars, but do you think that congress should raise the funding for the B-2 project. Or do you think that they should increase funding for a more cost effective bomber to replace the B-2. I think that the B-2 is fine the way it is.


Good question! I will start out by saying I personally have mixed feeling on this issue. On one hand, I love the B-2's design and would love to see a fleet of 132 based at Whiteman AFB as was origionally planned back in the mid 1980's.

However, on the other side of the issue, there are some missions the B-52 does, such as when they carpet bombed the Republican Guard in Iraq, that I could not see the B-2 flying. The B-2 is best at precision strike of high value targets in heavly defended areas. Some of the things the B-52 is used for, I would never use a high value asset like the B-2(or any other stealth aircraft) for.

What we really need is a new plane to COMPLIMENT the B-2 in its mission!

Tim



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 05:16 AM
link   
If the USAF is looking for a low risk/low cost subsonic platform for bombing the crap out of countries who can't fight back, why not simply add a bomber element to the current tanker role? A converted 767/A330 could certainly do the B-52's job if a cost effective way of including bomb doors could be developed.

I don't think this is a serious possibility by the way, I'm just considering how the B-52 flies. The B-2 could certainly do the carpet bombing thing, if only there were enough of them, which is the problem of course.



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 05:30 AM
link   
The US Air Force traditionally likes to have a high/low technology mix in it's weapons capibility. Look at the F-22/F-35 combination or the F-15/F-16 pairing. Right now in the bomber fleet, the B-2 provides up with our high tech bomber. If the pattern holds, they should be looking for a low end bomber to compliment the B-2 in the strategic mission.

Tim



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 05:46 AM
link   
Hmmm, I'm disagreeing with you quite a bit today Tim, I promise I'm not doing it on purpose, ........but

The F-22/F-35 and F-15/F-16 mix thing was nothing to do with high tech/low tech. In both cases the level of technology used was/is directly comparable. The division is more to do with "full scale, full on capability/the same but smaller and cheaper so affordable in greater numbers".



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Waynos,

That was the idea I was trying to convey in my last post. I didn't mean that the F-35 isn't high tech, not at all! I was trying to say one is design to the edge of technical capibility, while the other balances technology with cost more.

This is an odd morning indeed!

Tim



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Ah, yes, they do call it a 'HI/LO mix', but that "Hi/Lo" is not tech, maybe 'cost' is more appropriate? Nevertheless, I see we are talking about the same thing



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackWidow23
 


i worked on the b-1b for four years as a mechanic and though it is VERY maintenance heavy as in every plane had a problem i find as a certified aircraft mechanic that every plane has its own problem. i personally feel that if the government were to put money into finishing the upgrades and making the b-1r it would be greatly beneficial. the b-1b is already a flying gas tank and heavy load carrying plane. with the upgrades of the f-22 engines and utilizing the already equipped external mounting points the b-1 would be faster and more dangerous. people think the aircraft isn't stealthy but if you knew what i knew you would think different. its not always the shape or material used but the technology. and with todays tech it would be hard to beat.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 



The B-1R would be an excellent force multiply but the question is: Is there enough room in the budget to build the aircraft? Even converting older airframes will be super expensive.

On the other hand a Ram Jet powered AMRAAM with a 150+ mile range would be perfect for it.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join