B-1R Thoughts and comments...

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 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.

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

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT