Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Are The Chances Of The B-1R Being Built?  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 25184 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.

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12065 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 25183 times:

I doubt the B-1R will ever go beyond the concept stage. DOD has told the USAF to introduce a new bomber in 2018, but it should have a common airfram that can also replace the AC-130.

User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 793 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (7 years 12 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 24903 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
DOD has told the USAF to introduce a new bomber in 2018, but it should have a common airfram that can also replace the AC-130.

What a weird mix of capabilities. What reason do they have to replace a jet bomber and a propeller gunship with the same aircraft.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4675 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (7 years 12 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 24755 times:

Why would those be new-built aircraft, rather than retrofitting existing B-1Bs ? I assume aerodynamics weren´t made for Mach 2 as the B-1B is relatively slow (around Mach 1.3) ?


Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (7 years 12 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 24741 times:

I 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.


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 5, posted (7 years 12 months 11 hours ago) and read 24515 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.
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 24420 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".
User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 24391 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.


User currently offlineEgronenthal From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 54 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 24041 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.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4675 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 24020 times:

Quoting Egronenthal (Reply 8):

Thank you very much for the explanation.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1368 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 23966 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.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic What Are The Chances Of The B-1R Being Built?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Are The Designations 4 US-milt-vehicles posted Wed Sep 11 2002 21:44:10 by Lehpron
What Are Some Aviation Careers In The US Navy posted Fri Aug 3 2007 23:09:56 by LAXspotter
What Are Those "Pods" On The F-15? posted Mon Oct 17 2005 03:44:13 by AnMCOSon
At What Speed Are The Most G's Pulled? posted Mon May 30 2005 08:14:24 by Lehpron
What Is The Future Of The Mig Design Bureau posted Tue Nov 11 2008 17:59:11 by Alberchico
What Will Happen To The AIM-54 Phoenix Missile? posted Tue Jul 22 2008 19:55:44 by AEramper1974
What Ever Happened To The Mexican Sukhois? posted Tue Mar 13 2007 00:23:35 by Marcus
What Ever Happed To The IL-106 posted Mon Jan 22 2007 23:21:37 by 747400sp
Are You In The RAF?Whats It Like Im Considering It posted Fri May 5 2006 22:38:43 by BradWray
What's The Status Of The F-22? posted Mon Apr 3 2006 17:37:34 by AviationAddict
What Are Some Aviation Careers In The US Navy posted Fri Aug 3 2007 23:09:56 by LAXspotter
What Are Those "Pods" On The F-15? posted Mon Oct 17 2005 03:44:13 by AnMCOSon
At What Speed Are The Most G's Pulled? posted Mon May 30 2005 08:14:24 by Lehpron
What Ever Happen To The A-330 Desitined For KC-X? posted Tue Mar 8 2011 10:32:25 by USAF336TFS
What Is The Future Of The Mig Design Bureau posted Tue Nov 11 2008 17:59:11 by Alberchico
What Will Happen To The AIM-54 Phoenix Missile? posted Tue Jul 22 2008 19:55:44 by AEramper1974
What Ever Happened To The Mexican Sukhois? posted Tue Mar 13 2007 00:23:35 by Marcus
What Ever Happed To The IL-106 posted Mon Jan 22 2007 23:21:37 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format