Boeing B-1R

apparition13 said:
How hard would it be? The air launched version is smaller and lighter than SRAM. If you're worried about wingspan, I'm pretty sure I've seen illustration of B-1s carrying 24 Phoenix missiles in a potential GIUK gap missileer role.
Click to expand...
What? The SRAM had a 17.5" body diameter, but the Phoenix had a 35" wingspan, and the AIM-174 is even bigger at nearly 62".
The issues with the fit on the CRLs would prevent them being carried there. I guess a modded & lengthened CWM *might* work,
but they would have to overlap, and how many would you have to carry to make it worth the effort (even with the greater range of a Bone)?
And we already know the issues with external carriage.
apparition13 said:
The ALCM-A design would have fit 24. Range would be 40% of the B model, but for tactical roles that would be fine, and modern engines could perhaps increase that to 1000nm rather than 600.
Click to expand...
The MRASM proposal using the AGM-109 Tomahawk body certainly thought along those lines, with the -H and -L version
(for the USAF & USN) using a turbojet engine and a different seeker head. Less range, but lower cost.
apparition13 said:
ASALM flew in the 70s. You'd have the entire Reagan presidency to build up an inventory, with the potential for even more for navy VLS cells (they fit), and if you have air-force and navy versions why not an army one? Once it's in production like that it would probably still be in production.

The same goes for SRAM II, that's your B-61 replacement.
Click to expand...

The AGM-131 SRAM2 did have a proposed "tactical" version that they fit-checked on an F-15. Lower yield, but it got
cancelled same time as the strategic version.

Not sure they would have gotten *both* SRAM2 and ASALM. And the "joint commonality" idea was a hard sell.
Just look at the mess with the F-4 and the F-111. The Navy and the Air Force despised each other more than the Soviets
at times.
apparition13 said:
Yeah, you'd really need one of something like Northrop's 40 hour patrol designs from the 60s to do that. Maybe it's something you'd say to talk Congress into putting the radars on the B-1, but never actually do.

And I'm really not thinking AWACS. Think of it as a really big Missileer that can launch from outside retaliation range, and then run away supersonic. Or the ultimate NORAD interceptor. :D
Click to expand...
And think about it. What's all this going to do to your fuel consumption? Low(er)-level stuff takes up a lot more than cruise
at altitude, even if you hook on new engines with some supercruise capability. I would wager that at least *one* of your weapon bays
is going to be taken up with a tank. This is something they've discussed using the Bones as they have. If you go with the
moveable bulkhead, you could conceivably go with the short tank they had (but never used) for the cruise missile configuration.
One normal bay aft, and one 50% larger fore/mid bay.

This is the big issue with the ABM "Scud-hunt" scenario. The bad guys aren't going to launch if they see you cruising around,
and it's a pretty short interval to identify, lock-on, fire and intercept before that ballistic is out of your range.
Inbound might be even worse. And I'd hate for those guys to have some anti-air help along with them. Even an old ZSU-57
or SA-6... unexpected... can ruin your day.
 
Kraut_Bone69 said:
What? The SRAM had a 17.5" body diameter, but the Phoenix had a 35" wingspan, and the AIM-174 is even bigger at nearly 62".
Click to expand...
Post 35 in this thread from Orionblamblam:

Overscan post in a different thread about a potential naval B-1E carrying Phoenix:

Folding fins were discussed, and SM-6 already has folding fins.

Kraut_Bone69 said:
Not sure they would have gotten *both* SRAM2 and ASALM. And the "joint commonality" idea was a hard sell.
Click to expand...
ASALM is much larger, too big really for tacair, where SRAM2 and ALCM-A make more sense, depending on whether you want speed or range respectively. I'm not proposing joint development either, ASALM would be first, then maybe the navy follows through with a VLS anti-air or even anti-surface version, and if you have a version with a booster why not a truck launched version?
Kraut_Bone69 said:
And think about it. What's all this going to do to your fuel consumption?
Click to expand...
Why would a missileer be doing low level? The only time for that would be when running away.
Kraut_Bone69 said:
This is the big issue with the ABM "Scud-hunt" scenario. The bad guys aren't going to launch if they see you cruising around,
and it's a pretty short interval to identify, lock-on, fire and intercept before that ballistic is out of your range.
Inbound might be even worse. And I'd hate for those guys to have some anti-air help along with them. Even an old ZSU-57
or SA-6... unexpected... can ruin your day.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking more GIUK gap, or additional BARCAP for a naval task force, or intercepting Bears over the Arctic, not overlying the front lines. If you want to do scud-hunting use tacair.

The only strategic bomber I've seen advertised as a ballistic missile hunter was the B-2 hunting Soviet ICBMs, and that was to strike them before launch, not intercept them. Not that I would expect there to be any ICBMs left unlaunched if B-2s are flying over the Soviet Union.
 
apparition13 said:
Folding fins were discussed, and SM-6 already has folding fins.
Click to expand...

The folding fins fold it down to fit a 21-inch square, about 30 inches on the diagonal. This is also the span of the strakes. That is substantially wider than the ALCM -- the widest munition that fits on a B-1 rotary launcher. ALCM is trapezoidal and ~24.5 inches across the widest part. An AIM-174, even with folding fins, will need a bigger "box" than that. I would doubt whether there is sufficient clearance between the rotary and the bomb bay walls to fit AIM-174.
 
Kraut_Bone69 said:
And the "joint commonality" idea was a hard sell.
Just look at the mess with the F-4 and the F-111. The Navy and the Air Force despised each other more than the Soviets
at times.
Click to expand...
Not entirely. The two branches are usually happy to snag a weapon designed for some mission the other has. Sidewinder being the best case in point, but 40mm Bofors and 30mm Mk44 also have been swiped from the Navy to work for USAF missions.
 
apparition13 said:
Post 35 in this thread from Orionblamblam:

Overscan post in a different thread about a potential naval B-1E carrying Phoenix:

Folding fins were discussed, and SM-6 already has folding fins.
Click to expand...
That pic has always stuck me as being a bit fanciful. Someone seems to have taken a little bit
of artistic license, and the proportions of some of the weapons seems off. Are those some napalm BLUs
in the second row?? But hey.. we're talking the "R" mod for the Bone, so anything's debatable!

Sure, you could mod the fins, but the seeker in the Phoenix was designed to work with the AWG-9 radar in the Tomcat.
In an earlier post I wondered what radar fit the 'Regional' mod would use; your weapons have to be able
to "talk" with the Bone's systems.

'Why would a missileer be doing low level? The only time for that would be when running away.'

I did say "low-er".
The original "Missileer" concept for fleet defense was a straight-wing aircraft. Bones like to go faster.
A lot of the wear & tear the fleet has undergone in the GWOT has come from having to keep the wings more
forward swept while waiting for targets to pop up.
apparition13 said:
I'm thinking more GIUK gap, or additional BARCAP for a naval task force, or intercepting Bears over the Arctic, not overlying the front lines. If you want to do scud-hunting use tacair.

The only strategic bomber I've seen advertised as a ballistic missile hunter was the B-2 hunting Soviet ICBMs, and that was to strike them before launch, not intercept them. Not that I would expect there to be any ICBMs left unlaunched if B-2s are flying over the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...
True, the idea of Beaks flying over the taiga, hunting rail- & road-mobile SS24s & -25s with 200kt SRAM2s
freaked a LOT of people out, including SAC. Finding your own targets was a direct divergence from the
"LeMay way" SAC had operated ("you will fly this route, hit this target, with this weapon, and ANY deviation
will get you shit-canned") since its inception.
 
flateric said:
Have you seen the topic name? WTF last page and a half has to do with 2004 Boeing Regional bomber project?
Click to expand...
Which part doesn't?

If you will check my posts, on at least *2* occasions, I did redirect attention to the subject being the 'Regional' mod.

How they would be fitted out, armed, and used (and the impediments to that) certainly seems "on topic".

This is a discussion board, yes?

Cheers//
 
SCAT-15F said:
GE's XA100 would be a perfect re-engine option. 47-50k thrust and far better fuel economy...
Click to expand...
Thrust to weight ratio is about the same as the Bone's current F101s (8:1 vs. 7:1) with a LOT more thrust in afterburner (31K vs 45K estimated). It offers about 10-20% more thrust than the current F135 in the F-35 but not quite as good thrust/weight (11.5/1).

I would imagine any use of the new adaptive engine tech would face the same problem of availability that using the Raptor's F119s would have had.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom