B-1R video

[shivering]

>a large fraction of the populace sees as a "secret Muslim"<

a) As usual, what does this have to do with the B-1R video?

b) Any hard data or sources to back such a claim? If so, post
them and your socio-political opinions in the appropriate forum.


Personally, I thought the B-1R in the video was a cool thing fanboy-wise,
but pretty much a sitting duck (S-300/S-400 anyone?) unless perhaps
it has a weapon bay full of HARMs besides all the AMRAAMs.

Cheers all!

 

[silvereagle]

" . . . a secret Muslim" The point was not about US voter's misconceptions, but about Change and it's unpredictability.

"Empire of Australasia" - I like that! Can I be Emperor? The first thing I would do is to recommision the F-111s in polished natural metal and only use them for 'torching' at Airshows and every Tuesday.

http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showphoto.php/photo/2442/size/big/ppuser/785

http://www.tim-beach.com/f111.htm

What's this got to do with the B-1R video? Everything, it and this are both fantasies that have no purpose other than to tickle the mind.

The Emperor,
Adelaide,
South Australia,
Oz

 

[Orionblamblam]

" . . . a secret Muslim" The point was not about US voter's misconceptions, but about Change and it's unpredictability.

Exactly so. If someone thinks that they can accurately foretell geopolitics more than five years down the line... they're wrong. Hell, it doesn't even take global politics: who in 1960 would have foreseen that fifty years later both the Bear and the B-52 would *still* be front line bombers? That the most advanced airliners of 2010 would be virtually identical in layout to the Boeing 707? That the fastest fighters of the next fifty years were already flying? That nuclear bombs were going to get *less* powerful, not more? That the C-130 would be the pinnacle of tactical air transport? That we'd get to the moon in only nine years, land only 12 men, and then give up? That government officials would be seriously considering the notion of rationing air transport for civilians, but that we could download hard-core porn at the speed of light?

So the idea of a sci-fi show presenting the USAF going into battle against Rafale's some decades down the line does not bug me much. Hell, I'm honestly surprised that the USAF has not tangled with reasonably modern *American* aircraft yet.

"Empire of Australasia" - I like that! Can I be Emperor?

You might have competition for the post...

 

[CFE]

If the Mach 2 top speed of the B-1A were to be restored in the B-1B, wouldn't it require changing the intakes back to something similar to what the B-1A had? The F119 is going to give you more thrust and probably better specific fuel consumption than the B-1B's F101's, but the higher thrust probably doesn't compensate for the fact that the intake shape isn't delivering airflow at the proper density and pressure that the engine would require for Mach 2 speed.

 

[Orionblamblam]

If the Mach 2 top speed of the B-1A were to be restored in the B-1B, wouldn't it require changing the intakes back to something similar to what the B-1A had?

Not necessarily. Better engines would give you more thrust at less airflow, so they could in principle get away with the same inlets. You'd still want to refine the inlets, however. And so long as the nacelles would have to be redesigned for the new engines anyway, that shouldn't be a problem.

 

[AeroFranz]

hmmm...If the B-1R is to retain stealth, then those inlets cannot be visible from the front (hence the baffles in the B-1B). At the same time, the baffles would not help with the goal of M2.2 dash speed. I don't know that there is sufficient duct length to do a deep 'S' like in the F-22.
The inlet system would look like anything else i have seen so far to accommodate both stealth and M2.2.

 

[sferrin]

IIRC the airflow of the F101 is 400lbs/sec. while the F119s is 335 lbs/sec.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I don't know that there is sufficient duct length to do a deep 'S' like in the F-22.

The B-1 is fortunate in that the engines are in discrete nacelles that *could* be completely replaced. If the USAF was actualyl going to go to the bother of rebuilding the B-1's into B-1R's, replacing the nacelles with all-new ones would probably be sensible.

 

[JoeinTX]

Dumb video, even dumber idea.


At that, such a scenario as that depicted in the video would never play out in reality......massed formations of concentrated tactical aircraft at altitude flying into contested airspace just waiting to be picked off. Idiocy.



Dogfights! has had some good episodes......don't discount it on account of this. But, it looks like the video game fans got ahold of this one.

 

[flateric]

I still just can't understand why documentary creators have decided remake B-1R, an Regional Bomber in its origin, to kind of Megagodzilla MiG-31.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

I'm a fanboy and I loved it.

 

[lantinian]

Just noticed this post...
Great find.

120 miles maximum firing range for the AMRAAM? This can't be your dad's AMRAAM. I imagines the B-1R will cruise at Mach 1.8+ and high altitude, giving the missiles more range but still, that is 3x the range of the A-model.

I love the concept as a whole. Kind of remind me of the earliest concepts of the ATF from Lockheed. The Mach 3, 120,000 lb Battlecruiser. I suspect the B-1R with F119 will be able to fly even faster and higher than the Raptor.

There is just one thing that bothers me. The external carriage of the missiles. I guess it looks more terrifying this way but with 3 big weapons bays, why loose the benefit of carry stores internally. Less drag and lower RCS are crucial in this scenario.

If they go ahead with the concept, I hope Boeing takes a look at the controversial YF-23 vertical missile launcher.

But yeah, Dale Brown will be a happy man if this projects turn into reality. I loved his books and he has got the concept spot on.

Interesting times ahead. With the US economy not in its best shape, the DoD will be forced to make some pretty budget based decisions to retain capability at low cost. That may be the next best thing to buying the full 381 Raptors

 

[OM]

I still just can't understand why documentary creators have decided remake B-1R, an Regional Bomber in its origin, to kind of Megagodzilla MiG-31.

...Because the basic B-1 design still harkens back to its supersonic origins, and even 40 years since the project got its start it still screams "let me blow the doors off a few cities as I roll in to drop some hot nuclear death on someone!" It's not a boring design, which means it has more visual grace than something like a BUFF or a B-36.

 

[lantinian]

I still just can't understand why documentary creators have decided remake B-1R, an Regional Bomber in its origin, to kind of Megagodzilla MiG-31.

My take on this one...

The ATF was designed to counter advanced Russian fighters and advanced SAMs if build in sufficient numbers. USAF won't get its wish for the numbers it seams but proliferation of advanced SAMs has been kind of slow compared to the export export of advanced fighters. In the Future, the F-35 will be there to help with A2G which leaves the F-22 greatly outnumbered in A2A at least as far as internal missiles vs incoming targets.

Its Funny but while the F-22 can easily fight greatly outnumbered, it cannot win due to lack of enough weapons. They need a new missile with less internal footprint if you ask me.

By the way, did anyone notice that in one of the episodes, the F-22 was shown to cary 2xAIM-9X in each side weapons bay?

Originally, I think they considered UCAVs to help the Raptors, flying ahead and caring extra missiles. But the UCAVS are subsonic and recent info suggest they are not yet ready for A2A mission.

So what platform can keep up with F-22 in speed, stealth and cary a lot more missiles?
The B-1R armed as Megagodzilla MiG-31

 

[Lampshade111]

While probably a poor idea, the concept of a missle truck still has some appeal to it, especially with advancements in missile technology. Of course I picture something a bit smaller than this B-1R.

Regarding it's main use as a bomber, I think this is an interesting alternative to the B-3 program. Probably more likely to succeed while we are under Obama.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

To achieve the same cruise speeds as the F-22 it would need new inlets most likely from my point of view.

They wouldn't have to be VG or like the B-1A's design as the F-22's inlets are fixed also.


KJ

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

The AIM-120B/C has an effective range of 120 miles? Jesus Christ

 

[lantinian]

The AIM-120B/C has an effective range of 120 miles? Jesus Christ

In episode #1, from the full 9 episode series, they describe the missile. It is the AIM-120D. Still, I thought the D-model called for 50% increase in effective range over the C model.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

lantanian,

Still, impressive regardless

 

[donnage99]

'Dogfight' has so many incorrect data for the sake of entertainment, it didn't surprise me at all when I saw it carries 4 aim-9.

Outnumbering f-22 is only a problem if all our other aircrafts are chopped liver.

 

[Triton]

"One proposed solution is the B-1R, essentially a B-1B powered by four Pratt & Whitney F119s, which are also used on the F/A-22 Raptor. White said that the B-1B has the range and payload for the mission but with a few tweaks its capabilities would be greatly enhanced. “In many ways, we would be restoring the original capabilities envisioned in the B-1A program, such as Mach 2 speeds,” said White. Additional enhancements would include network centric capabilities, air-to-air engagement, active electronically-scanned array radar, improved defensive systems, and opening up existing external hard points for conventional weapons." - from Boeing's "All Systems Go"

Despite the Boeing B-1R's depiction as an air force annihilating AIM-120 AMRAAM missile truck in "Dogfights of the Future", does it make any sense to retrofit several Rockwell B-1B Lancers to the capabilities of the B-1A as explained in All Systems Go?

 

[bobbymike]

Does 2nd generation space radar couple to a future BWB missile truck that's big enough to be loaded with PAC-3, THAAD or even larger air to air missiles with ranges in the 100's of miles makes sense?

 

[quellish]

Does 2nd generation space radar couple to a future BWB missile truck that's big enough to be loaded with PAC-3, THAAD or even larger air to air missiles with ranges in the 100's of miles makes sense?

Counter air missiles with that much range make more sense if they are very fast. DARPA looked at this problem very hard in the 70s and 80s to counter both fighters and legions of bombers. Their proposed solutions are documented elsewhere on the forum.

 

[bobbymike]

Does 2nd generation space radar couple to a future BWB missile truck that's big enough to be loaded with PAC-3, THAAD or even larger air to air missiles with ranges in the 100's of miles makes sense?

Counter air missiles with that much range make more sense if they are very fast. DARPA looked at this problem very hard in the 70s and 80s to counter both fighters and legions of bombers. Their proposed solutions are documented elsewhere on the forum.

Thank you any help with links would be great my friend

 

[TomS]

Despite the Boeing B-1R's depiction as an air force annihilating AIM-120 AMRAAM missile truck in "Dogfights of the Future", does it make any sense to retrofit several Rockwell B-1B Lancers to the capabilities of the B-1A as explained in All Systems Go?

I can't imagine that a partial fleet refit would make any sense.

1) It would be a fairly expensive modification to design, requiring all new engine pods, and probably significant reengineering of the attachment points and possibly even other parts of the airframe. (The original B-1A had more titanium in the wings to deal with aerodynamic heating at high speeds, for instance.)

2) Having done that, applying the mods to only part of the fleet would increas support costs considerably since you'd have to maintian two very different aircraft standards.

3) At the end of the day, just getting back B-1A performance isn't that important. Do we really care about the difference between Mach 1.25 and 2.0 in most modern strike scenarios? For time-critical strike, it seems more useful to develop high-speed missiles that could be carried on a variety of platforms.

 

[royabulgaf]

The USAF wants a new bomber (among other things). Are there enough hours left of the B-1 airframes to do this now? This could free up funds for the new tanker, F-35, new trainer, etc.

 

[GeorgeA]

Counter air missiles with that much range make more sense if they are very fast. DARPA looked at this problem very hard in the 70s and 80s to counter both fighters and legions of bombers. Their proposed solutions are documented elsewhere on the forum.

Thank you any help with links would be great my friend

For starters, search the forum for LORAINE.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

I'm still holding out for a shiny PDF of this.

 

[bagera3005]

i put gun under nose becuse if there acting with in fighter role it might be good idea an way i seen some B-1B drives i would not put it past them to lock up some one just to to have bargaining rights after all they are pilots

 

[ouroboros]

The speed may not be for missiles per se. Wing kitted SDB's getting flung by a fast B-1 that's loitering is nothing to sneeze at, considering the available bomb load in the internal bays alone. Save the hardpoints for real missiles then? Don't forget that the B-1 is ostensibly the main test platform for the new high energy electric laser demo as well. So a DEW equipped B-1 (consume both forward bays), with SDB's in the rear bay and missiles on hardpoints makes for a mean beast. Engine inlet tricks like a previously identified compressing inlet mesh grid which can double as a blocker would work well with the nacelle redesign work to accomodate the new engines, and perhaps a diverterless inlet design as well. Now, do you consume a hardpoint slot for that Sniper XR pod, or integrate something like the F-35's EOTS nose module like Predator C does? If that Sandia work for laser guided .50 cal bullets pans out, we might see the return of gunships even.

A few unofficial drawings show a V or platypus tail for the B-1R, but if you are bringing in engines from another program, then perhaps getting in on the F-135 buy coupled with thrust vectoring nozzles could allow you to go tailless, and open up the tailcone for more defensive systems.

An underlying issue is LRS-B and nuclear treaties. If the nuclear mission gets offloaded to LRS-B, then it frees up B-1's for conventional work in not-too-hostile areas by declaring them non-nuclear. However, if I remember correctly LRS-B will not be initially nuclear capable, which pushes the chances of of a B-1R being made even lower.

 

[jsport]

The speed may not be for missiles per se. Wing kitted SDB's getting flung by a fast B-1 that's loitering is nothing to sneeze at, considering the available bomb load in the internal bays alone. Save the hardpoints for real missiles then? Don't forget that the B-1 is ostensibly the main test platform for the new high energy electric laser demo as well. So a DEW equipped B-1 (consume both forward bays), with SDB's in the rear bay and missiles on hardpoints makes for a mean beast. Engine inlet tricks like a previously identified compressing inlet mesh grid which can double as a blocker would work well with the nacelle redesign work to accomodate the new engines, and perhaps a diverterless inlet design as well. Now, do you consume a hardpoint slot for that Sniper XR pod, or integrate something like the F-35's EOTS nose module like Predator C does? If that Sandia work for laser guided .50 cal bullets pans out, we might see the return of gunships even.

A few unofficial drawings show a V or platypus tail for the B-1R, but if you are bringing in engines from another program, then perhaps getting in on the F-135 buy coupled with thrust vectoring nozzles could allow you to go tailless, and open up the tailcone for more defensive systems.

An underlying issue is LRS-B and nuclear treaties. If the nuclear mission gets offloaded to LRS-B, then it frees up B-1's for conventional work in not-too-hostile areas by declaring them non-nuclear. However, if I remember correctly LRS-B will not be initially nuclear capable, which pushes the chances of of a B-1R being made even lower.

Thank you for sharing the concept Ouroboros.

 

[TomS]

An underlying issue is LRS-B and nuclear treaties. If the nuclear mission gets offloaded to LRS-B, then it frees up B-1's for conventional work in not-too-hostile areas by declaring them non-nuclear. However, if I remember correctly LRS-B will not be initially nuclear capable, which pushes the chances of of a B-1R being made even lower.

The B-1B has no nuclear role anymore, and hasn't since the mid-1990s. Current treaties don't even concern themselves with platforms -- they count warheads only.

 

[mithril]

i wondered why the B-1 in the video hadn't made use of its internal bays.. seems to me that designing a launcher for AIM-120's that slots into the existing weapons bay would offer better carriage options.. external racks seem rather limited and inefficent.

 

[aam641]

A few unofficial drawings show a V or platypus tail for the B-1R, but if you are bringing in engines from another program, then perhaps getting in on the F-135 buy coupled with thrust vectoring nozzles could allow you to go tailless, and open up the tailcone for more defensive systems.

The engine nozzles are probably too close to the center of gravity for the thrust vectoring to be very effective.

 

[ouroboros]

An underlying issue is LRS-B and nuclear treaties. If the nuclear mission gets offloaded to LRS-B, then it frees up B-1's for conventional work in not-too-hostile areas by declaring them non-nuclear. However, if I remember correctly LRS-B will not be initially nuclear capable, which pushes the chances of of a B-1R being made even lower.

The B-1B has no nuclear role anymore, and hasn't since the mid-1990s. Current treaties don't even concern themselves with platforms -- they count warheads only.

Yes, but treaty obligations is what forced the welding over of cover plates on the eternal hardpoints in the first place. I seem to remember there was some treaty haggling to allow one hardpoint cover to be undone for Sniper XL pod mounting. At least in the past, the russians did inspect for hardpoint cover status. Have the B-1B from a treaty perspective actually been declared as a non-nuclear platform, rather than coincidentally not being loaded up anymore due to peacetime status? Or have newer treaties sufficiently revoked the conditions and terms of older treaties to be a pure warhead count only?

 

[TomS]

You made me do some research.


SORT (aka the Moscow Treaty) was strictly a warhead count limit. In 2011, it was superseded by New START, which does go back to counting platforms as well as warheads (max 700 total deployed ICBMs, SLBMs, and nuclear heavy bombers; max 1550 deployed warheads, with bombers counting as 1 warhead each regardless of their actual capacity). The B-1B is listed in the New START treaty text as a nuclear heavy bomber, but there is a provision (in the First Agreed Statement) to remove it from the counting limits after a one-time demonstration that the fleet is no longer nuclear capable. That apparently happened in the first round of inspections in 2011, so the B-1s are no longer treaty-countable as nuclear delivery platforms.


Here's a nice CRS report from earlier this year summarizing the New START treaty:


http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R41219.pdf

 

[ouroboros]

You made me do some research.


SORT (aka the Moscow Treaty) was strictly a warhead count limit. In 2011, it was superseded by New START, which does go back to counting platforms as well as warheads (max 700 total deployed ICBMs, SLBMs, and nuclear heavy bombers; max 1550 deployed warheads, with bombers counting as 1 warhead each regardless of their actual capacity). The B-1B is listed in the New START treaty text as a nuclear heavy bomber, but there is a provision (in the First Agreed Statement) to remove it from the counting limits after a one-time demonstration that the fleet is no longer nuclear capable. That apparently happened in the first round of inspections in 2011, so the B-1s are no longer treaty-countable as nuclear delivery platforms.


Here's a nice CRS report from earlier this year summarizing the New START treaty:


http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R41219.pdf

Thanks for the update on that. So at the very least, the covers are off (or can be), which can open up some opportunities to get operational experience with external carriage beyond just the Sniper XL pod. Though that does put the question of LRS-B's future nuclear capability after initial operational introduction in a new perspective, pehaps "paid for" by the reduction in missile counts for SSBN-X if not stealing platform counts from elsewhere?

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Anything publicly relaeased on the B-1R. Maybe a shiny PDF somewhere perhaps?

 

[flateric]

just one tiny official rendering in Boeing Frontiers

 

[GeorgeA]

Not sure where this should go, but was buried in the FY2017 budget request story:

http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2016/02/02/carter-unveils-budget-details-pentagon-requests-5827b-funding/79686138/

"Finally, Carter offered the vision of an “arsenal plane,” which takes an unnamed, older Air Force platform turns it into “a flying launch pad for all sorts of different conventional payloads. In practice, the arsenal plane will function as a very large airborne magazine, networked to 5th-generation aircraft that act as forward sensor and targeting nodes – essentially combining different systems already in our inventory to create wholly new capabilities."