B-1R program

the b-1r can supposedly go 2.2 Mach while the preposed "2035 bomber" is capable of going hyper sonic. The b-1r can only climb to roughly 50,000 feet while the "2035 bomber" is a semi orbital strike platform. So which would you choose to own and operate?

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
the b-1r can supposedly go 2.2 Mach while the preposed "2035 bomber" is capable of going hyper sonic. The b-1r can only climb to roughly 50,000 feet while the "2035 bomber" is a semi orbital strike platform. So which would you choose to own and operate?

I'd rather have larger numbers of the B-1R and rely on other systems for PGS missions.

i still belive the military should for now build a second generation of b-52s over anything else until we get the "2035" bomber operational. Which would you like to have gaurding america.
b-1r= 2.2 mach
"2035 bomber"=hypersonic
height
b-1r=50,000
"2035 bomber"=semiorbital

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
i still belive the military should for now build a second generation of b-52s over anything else until we get the "2035" bomber operational. Which would you like to have gaurding america.
b-1r= 2.2 mach
"2035 bomber"=hypersonic
height
b-1r=50,000
"2035 bomber"=semiorbital

I fail to see a mission role for your multi-billion dollar "2035 bomber". You can use rhetoric like "guarding America" but it doesn't really mean anything. What is the useful payload of your hypersonic dream machine? How much does it cost (both to develop, purchase and to deploy)? What cannot it do that a combination of less expensive systems could not do? The speed and height of the aircraft "guarding America" are largely irrelevant. What does the system do? Can your hypersonic B-3 carry a large useful load with significant loiter capability? If not, it may not be as useful in several different scenarios. The only things I can see a hypersonic a/c being really useful for are roles that other systems can fulfill more cheaply.


[edit on 22-5-2008 by _Del_]

reply to post by _Del_


I agree the 'Guarding America" is a bit much, but I do think that in terms of Global Strike (esp rapid), a Hypersonic platform would be the way to go. In that type of scenario (strategic vs. tactical) the ability to get there fast would override the need to loiter plus being able to do so from CONUS would also have signifigant advantages in terms of security and basing. But we are talking about a hypothetical airframe and yes the development costs would make the B-2's look like chump change

However, the oft mentioned conventional ICBM would also give you a hypersonic strike weapon that would be able to hit any non moving target anywhere in the world in 30 plus minutes with a decent sized conventional warhead (Faster if you use SLBM's). It would be alot cheaper that a hypersonic bomber program. While the technical issues for the ICBM system are pretty simple the political ones are not.



[edit on 5/22/08 by FredT]

reply to post by FredT


The AHW as envisioned is somewhat more than a conventional warhead on a ICBM. It has the advantage that it would not share a flight profile of an ICBM. The Air Force's CSM is similar. Both projects would be Hypersonic Boost Glide Vehicles.

A nice, short read (without being overly technical or classified) would be this brief. (it's .pdf)

[edit on 22-5-2008 by _Del_]

reply to post by BlackWidow23According tp the info about this aircraft it will use the same type of engines that the f-23 use that will allow it to run in a super-cruise mode. Range will not be an issue!

reply to post by galm 1


really? does it really matter how green it is? if it gets the bombs on target than its a good plane, those airplanes are not made to help the so called 'global warming' go away. they are made to get the job done and the impact on the eviorment doesnt matter

reply to post by gottago


With the advent of stealth technology, sorties flown by super-heavyweight long-range bombers that fly further, faster, and carry more munitions is more vital than ever. Reason: Once the elememt of suprise has evaporated, who's gonna bring in the big bombs? The B-52 is nearing 60 years old. As sad as it is to say, one day, the BUFF will retire. It's payload capacity is still unmatched. #2 in the payload race is the B-1. It is supersonic, the RCS is tiny by comparison, not to mention it is agile, graceful, and plainly BAD-ACTION! I have a passion for the thing. Aside from that, we do need it, in all it's forms. Even though the B-2 is stealthy, it is still a huge, slow, black target for some terrorists RPG. We need a bomber that can get in and out in a heated rush! Hence, the lethality, vitality, and necessity for the B-1, in any and every form the Air Force gives it. It's not stealth that troops on the ground ask for when they call for air support. It's bombs. And in a hurry. Being on the cutting edge of technology is what puts us ahead of other countries. Our tax dollars are not the issue. It's defense. It's the image of us being untouchable that keeps us generally safe. Having weapons around, like the B-1, even if it is in a hangar... Well, who's gonna dare us to wheel it out?

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by BlackWidow23According tp the info about this aircraft it will use the same type of engines that the f-23 use that will allow it to run in a super-cruise mode. Range will not be an issue!

The plan is for the F-119 Engine to be used if this plane ever moves forward which it is not at this point. And range is always a issue. Fuel is one of the things that you can't have too much of unless that is your on fire.

No you cannot copy the eskimoe birds , the Key planes .

They fly 50 000 mph guys , you cannot build em , you like the flyin pizza boxes evrit has eh the Canadian B 2 right , enjoy it protecting Northern washington state and thats it !

The B 3 is KOOL eh , the eskimoe subway . I had somethin to do with the engine plate design .

B-1R certainly would have merit in an AA role, with support craft.

As far as a new heavy bomber, it should be studied like a commercial programme. Say, with a very basic airframe adapted from civil production lines, how cheaply can you put ordinance on target? Face it, most heavy bombing is done in an air superiority or supremacy environment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't a UPS cargo plane drop bombs?

Quantity over quality for the dumb bomb platform.

Makes perfect sense. Big Missile truck as the killer, stealthy fighter as the hunter. Just like the F-16/ F-4G relationship of the mid 1990s. The F-22 cannot physically carry enough ordinance to deal with massive threats. The B-1R as a force multiplier is a good move.

Kinda makes you wonder if maybe Boeing would take some of their own money, along with the Air Force, and make a proof of concept vehicle.


Did I say that?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Kinda makes you wonder if maybe Boeing would take some of their own money, along with the Air Force, and make a proof of concept vehicle.


Did I say that?

Wonder what they would have called said proof of concept vehicle. Definitely not B-1R right?

a reply to: Bfirez

"Badass"

a reply to: Zaphod58

Love it

a reply to: Zaphod58

Kinda makes you wonder if such a project might have been responsible for that new hangar construction at Groom

Also makes you wonder if, hypothetically, they would have decided to keep the V-tail from all of the concept images.

All I'm saying is that "Bonanza from hell" has a certain ring to it...

EDIT: "Forked-tail peer state-killer" is also pretty catchy..