747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4248 posts, RR: 2 Posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 31927 times:
I been reading about Boeing plans to start building the B-1R. It has four P&W F-119 replacing the four GE F-101. It also will have capabilities to travel at mach 2 in super cruise. So here is my question, do you think Boeing will be able build to the B-1R, are do you think it is going to be another paper plane.
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 31258 times:
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 4): think the days of large, expensive, and manned bombers are numbered. UCAVs are the future. Will a B-1R be built? IMO, no...not a chance.
How much would it cost (or what would be gained)for a B-1 to be UCAV'ed? Meaning having the life support systems and overall pilot cabins removed and replaced with systems to allow for remote or artifical flying?
IMO, a retrofitted UCAV shouldn't have to change in form compared to their piloted counterparts. If clean sheet, then of course.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 month 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 31163 times:
Quoting Lehpron (Reply 5): How much would it cost (or what would be gained)for a B-1 to be UCAV'ed? Meaning having the life support systems and overall pilot cabins removed and replaced with systems to allow for remote or artifical flying?
Interesting concept. I have no idea of the cost, but for one-way missions where the chance of aircraft loss is high, but the gains of target destruction offset the risk of loss..? Still think a new build UCAV would be preferable since it would incorporate the latest low observable technology, but the technology is there to do what you suggest. Look at all the old fighters converted to targets, as well as the USAF's ability to control UAV's from virtually any point on the globe.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
Flyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 month 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 31134 times:
It seems like we have two needs for heavy bombers.
One is that of a super stealth penetration bomber to take care of high value targets in heavily defended areas at the beginning of a war. This role is currently filled by the B-2 and will be for the foreseeable future.
The other is a bomb dumptruck for the duration of the war after air superiority has been won. It doesn't need to be fast or stealthy, just have a huge carrying capacity to be a carpet bomber, airborne launching platform for smart bombs and cruise missiles, etc. This is currently filled by the B-52 and B-1.
It seems to me like we need more B-2s (or an aircraft with similar capability) in the future and that the next "bomb truck" could be something as simple as a converted airliner or cargo plane. Heck, when this tanker decision is made, get some more 767s or A330s and put bomb-bays in them. They'd do the B-52's job perfectly and probably a lot cheaper/better.
Egronenthal From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 54 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 month 3 hours ago) and read 30784 times:
Quote: I assume aerodynamics weren´t made for Mach 2 as the B-1B is relatively slow (around Mach 1.3) ?
The original B-1A was a true Mach 2+ airplane at altitude. The B-1B has been slowed down quite a bit due to design and mission mods, but still retains most of the high-speed aerodynamics of the earlier model:
1) The variable engine inlets (the real key to Mach 1.5+) were replaced with simpler fixed inlets to reduce cost;
2) There was significant structural beef-up to allow the airframe to perform low-level penetration missions, quite a change from the high-level mission originally intended, as well as a much larger on-board electronics suite for self-defense. MTOW went up from about 350,000-375,000 lbs. to over 477,000 lbs., without any increase in thrust, so performance suffered accordingly;
3) As the mission was changed from high-altitude to low altitude, max speed also dropped with the increase in air density at low level.
It would be interesting to see a B-1R, but I really doubt if one would ever be built.
Areopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1380 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 30709 times:
The B-1A was designed to have a range of 6300 nm, of which 2000 would be flown at low altitude. Low-level penetration speed was originally to be Mach 1.2, but this was lowered to 0.85 to allow construction of aluminum rather than titanium.