Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: B-1R Thoughts and comments...
DarthAmerica    5/13/2009 4:09:14 AM
...just for fun I thought I'd bring this up with the soon to come debate over a new bomber.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5
airmanshutup    The joys of the BONE   10/27/2009 9:59:02 AM

In a hypothetical way, it is a pretty cool idea.  Specifically, I've always been an advocate for the F-22 as a force multiplier in the sense that even unarmed it can target for other platforms, as it does in the video.  A B-1R type platform would work well with that, though I think you would need something even longer ranged than an AIM-120D to really take advantage of it.


 

There's no way the Air Force is going to buy more B-1s of any type, but I expect we could see something similar to this in the future involving the next generation bomber employing JDRADMs this way.







 
Quote    Reply

Ispose    Lets get Crazy   10/27/2009 1:22:42 PM
How about a Zeppelin (Helium of Course) with solar panels, electric motors, AWACS, and Standard missiles...just park the damm thing at long range and shoot anything that rises.
Use the Navy anti missile missiles for point Defense.
Pressurize the crew section at loft it to 50,000 feet.
Just a Thought
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       10/27/2009 2:37:21 PM
Well, this solves for the Chinese Zerg Rush problem.  The reason to use the B-1 is twofold; kinematics maximizing the missiles' potential; and range, i.e., the ability to operate out of say Elmendorf or Hickam instead of taking up precious slots in Guam or Okinawa (as well as taking one T/L slot instead of a dozen).  The F-22 is maxed out with the numbers and ranges now contemplated; we've done the math over and over again...and best-case scenarios JUST let us cover the Taiwan Strait with no margin for error.  Slow fat UAV Missileers?  but they did those studies in the 1950s and FAIL...what is different now?
 
Quote    Reply

RedParadize       10/27/2009 5:33:32 PM
Humm... Bomber used as Missile truck? thats an interesting concept.
 
If BVR combat is really gonna dominate the future, I guess the heavier playload of bomber could have some use. Bomber could carry super heavy long range missile that don't fit on any fighter.
 
20 ALCMs can fit on a B-1b... I guess 20 "SM-3 style" missiles would fit too. Fired from high altitude that kind of missile would have an incredible range. But some extra speed would probably be required to be effective at +400km.
 
I don't think that kind of capability is required right now. Bomber are very expensive and the "SM-3 style" missile would not be cheap too. That money could be more useful somewhere else.
 
Quote    Reply

kensohaski       10/28/2009 8:31:40 PM
Hey Darth,
 
Shoot me an email if you are around.
 
 
Ken
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       10/29/2009 3:37:11 AM

Humm... Bomber used as Missile truck? thats an interesting concept.

If BVR combat is really gonna dominate the future, I guess the heavier playload of bomber could have some use. Bomber could carry super heavy long range missile that don't fit on any fighter.

20 ALCMs can fit on a B-1b... I guess 20 "SM-3 style" missiles would fit too. Fired from high altitude that kind of missile would have an incredible range. But some extra speed would probably be required to be effective at +400km.

I don't think that kind of capability is required right now. Bomber are very expensive and the "SM-3 style" missile would not be cheap too. That money could be more useful somewhere else.

The SM-3 is for exo-atmospheric intercepts only, i.e. long range (probably > 1000km) ballistic missile ONLY.
 
For the anti-air you want the SM-6 (in development, it is an SM-2 with the radar from the AIM-120D for terminal guidance beyond the range of the ship's radar).
 
 
Quote    Reply

RedParadize       10/29/2009 5:45:27 AM



Humm... Bomber used as Missile truck? thats an interesting concept.

If BVR combat is really gonna dominate the future, I guess the heavier playload of bomber could have some use. Bomber could carry super heavy long range missile that don't fit on any fighter.

20 ALCMs can fit on a B-1b... I guess 20 "SM-3 style" missiles would fit too. Fired from high altitude that kind of missile would have an incredible range. But some extra speed would probably be required to be effective at +400km.

I don't think that kind of capability is required right now. Bomber are very expensive and the "SM-3 style" missile would not be cheap too. That money could be more useful somewhere else.


The SM-3 is for exo-atmospheric intercepts only, i.e. long range (probably > 1000km) ballistic missile ONLY.

 For the anti-air you want the SM-6 (in development, it is an SM-2 with the radar from the AIM-120D for terminal guidance beyond the range of the ship's radar).
 

I said "SM-3 style"...
I just picked a missile that have the similar size and weight then the ALCM. But ya SM6 fit better here.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    B-1R   10/29/2009 12:29:23 PM
It would be interesting what could be done with a modernized B-1.  The B-1B is faster than the B-1A at low level and has a much lower RCS but is much slower at altitude due to the different inlets.  Exactly what is proposed for the inlets on an F119 super cruising B-1R?  The B-1B has an RCS of around 2.4 m squared according to what is floating around on public sources.  Might a B-1R be much lower?
 
The B-1 has three internal weapon bays.  Why mess with drag and RCS and hang AAM's on pods vs launching them internally?
 
Whatever is used as a missile truck the added range if the launching aircraft is going mach 1.6+ at 60,000+ ft is very considerable.  Moreover, to operate as a missile truck for the F-22 would seem to require supercruise so if not a B-1R than we're still talking a sophisticated and expensive aircraft.
 
One serious advantage of the B-1R would be after the missile truck role falls off it goes back to being a bomb truck. 
Whatever new bomber the USAF comes up with (medium or large) one hopes this role is kept in mind.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics