747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3850
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

What Are The Chances Of The B-1R Being Built?

Wed Apr 26, 2006 8:09 am

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.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11006
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: What Are The Chances Of The B-1R Being Built?

Wed Apr 26, 2006 8:56 am

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.
 
Ozair
Posts: 1379
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: What Are The Chances Of The B-1R Being Built?

Thu Apr 27, 2006 11:46 am

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.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: What Are The Chances Of The B-1R Being Built?

Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:18 pm

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.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: What Are The Chances Of The B-1R Being Built?

Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:20 am

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".
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: What Are The Chances Of The B-1R Being Built?

Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:46 pm

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
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: What Are The Chances Of The B-1R Being Built?

Mon May 01, 2006 7:40 am

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
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: What Are The Chances Of The B-1R Being Built?

Mon May 01, 2006 9:35 am

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
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 am

RE: What Are The Chances Of The B-1R Being Built?

Thu May 04, 2006 3:08 am

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.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: What Are The Chances Of The B-1R Being Built?

Thu May 04, 2006 3:55 am

Quoting Egronenthal (Reply 8):

Thank you very much for the explanation.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: What Are The Chances Of The B-1R Being Built?

Thu May 04, 2006 8:53 am

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: timboflier215 and 10 guests