The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 25, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
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
Sign In   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

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
SpudmanWP       5/15/2009 2:38:14 PM
I think we can perfect the multi-pulse rocket motor sooner than we can a ramjet or other range extending tech.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       5/15/2009 4:02:32 PM

I think we can perfect the multi-pulse rocket motor sooner than we can a ramjet or other range extending tech.

TALOS.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Herald   5/15/2009 4:12:11 PM
Talos, the Missile or the Planet?
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    The missile of course.    5/15/2009 4:34:54 PM
 
Quote    Reply

SpudmanWP       5/18/2009 11:54:44 AM



I think we can perfect the multi-pulse rocket motor sooner than we can a ramjet or other range extending tech.



TALOS.
The METEOR is a lot different than TALOS.
 
Your comparison is like saying because we developed the F-100 series fighters (1950's tech) then the F-35 is a no-brainer.  Both the F-100 series and the TALOS are both 1950's tech and are both IRRELEVENT today.
 
There are several things different about METEOR that makes it a technological challenge. 
1.  Multiple offset square inlets.  (TALOS has a single round one)
2.  Offset inlets draw air differently based on angle of turn/bank
3.  Compact active seeker (TALOS was SARH)
4.  Integrated solid rocket booster (TALOS's booster separated after burning out)
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       5/18/2009 12:40:36 PM







I think we can perfect the multi-pulse rocket motor sooner than we can a ramjet or other range extending tech.







TALOS.

The METEOR is a lot different than TALOS.

 Of course it is. It is a different air inlet architecture and lifting body so that a RH head can be fitted to the missile. The Talos is a better solution from the intake standpoint for a SARH (SEADART is similar) because it was a simpler to solve SARH two axis bang/bang SAM solution.

Your comparison is like saying because we developed the F-100 series fighters (1950's tech) then the F-35 is a no-brainer.  Both the F-100 series and the TALOS are both 1950's tech and are both IRRELEVENT today.

No they are not. The F-100 is the 1950 HORRIBLE solution to a supersonic dash capable low cost day fighter. Its next iteration was the F-16 Falcon. 
 
TALOS, the missile, was successful, The rrason for withdrawal was its SIZE. Its huge! The Bendix ramjet remains the benchmark standard for ramjets to the present.
 
There are several things different about METEOR that makes it a technological challenge. 

1.  Multiple offset square inlets.  (TALOS has a single round one)
 
Two. designed into what are called rail keel lift fairings.
2.  Offset inlets draw air differently based on angle of turn/bank

They are parallel and coincident. The lift into turn are what the yaw/roll  canards are there to solve.  
3.  Compact active seeker (TALOS was SARH)
TALOS was a beam rider until it fell on you after the lob.. The SARH was strictly for endgame during the chase plunge.
4.  Integrated solid rocket booster (TALOS's booster separated after burning out)
Talos' solution was better for a missile it's size. Leaves a clean plenum chamber and venturi. The combustion pot on Meteor has to burn clean of the rocket motor candle completely; or you have exhaust flow duct problems. This is one of Meteor's many "minor" holdups.  The Russians solved that problem. The Germans still seem to have a problem with ensuring an even  burn out of the candle so you get a debris free symmetric duct.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector       5/18/2009 2:16:18 PM

A question I have re Meteor is how do the ports clear without ejecta (as advertised)?  The covers themselves are ejecta if jettisoned, which is what I had presumed.  Are the covers simply moved somehow while being secured against the shell?  Do they then contribute to flow control?  Thanks in advance if you out there happen to know.

v^2
 
Quote    Reply

SpudmanWP       5/18/2009 3:33:52 PM
Herald,
   
When I said
I think we can perfect the multi-pulse rocket motor sooner than we can a ramjet or other range extending tech.
 
Your response seemed to imply that the TALOS was ramjet perfected.  Nothing about the TALOS plays a significant role in the METEOR design.
 
My ref to the Century Series of fighters (not just the F-100) was to show how the tech of the day, again, plays no significant role in designing today's tech.
 
My overriding point was that the GD design, with a restartable rocket motor, would allow the F-22 to carry far more missiles and the F-35 to take over the mission envisioned for B-1R in this thread and in the video.
 
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       5/29/2009 1:47:27 PM
B-1R Thoughts and comments...
...The only true replacement for the Pig.
 
 
Quote    Reply

airmanshutup    The joys of the BONE   10/27/2009 9:57:55 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

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
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy