Poll: Is further development/production of the B-1R worth it?

Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: B-1R Lancer

  1. #1

    B-1R Lancer

    So for those of you that don't know the B-1R (BoneR ) is the proposed replacement for the current B-1B fleet. Its most interesting improvement in my opinion is the replacement of it's old engines with the Pratt and Whitney F119 engine which could enable it to hit mach 2.2

    There are precious few military aircraft that can hit mach 2.2 and I don't think there are any that could maintain that speed nearly as long.

    Here's some info
    The B-1R is a proposed replacement for the B-1B fleet.[16] Boeing's director of global strike integration, Rich Parke, was first quoted about the "B-1R" bomber in Air Force Magazine.[17] Parke said the B-1R (R stands for "regional") would be a Lancer with advanced radars, air-to-air missiles, and Pratt & Whitney F119 engines (originally developed for the F-22 Raptor).[16] Its new top speed — Mach 2.2 — would be purchased at the price of a 20% reduction of the B-1B's combat range. This proposal would involve modifying existing aircraft. The FB-22 and YF-23-based design are alternative proposals.

    The B-2 has proven itself in the "limited strike" role, able to penetrate any current air defense system and deliver conventional bombs with impunity. The role of "fleet in being" is ably served, and there appears to be no reason to maintain the B-52s for this purpose alone. This leaves the "bomb truck" duty as the B-52's primary role that is not currently filled by other aircraft.

    Other changes in the nature of modern air warfare have also come into play. Missiles like the AIM-120 and AIM-9X so improve on older designs that the primary determinant of air combat success appears to be having the best radars and display systems – the aircraft that can detect, lock-on and shoot first will almost certainly win an engagement, even, to a limited degree, against aircraft behind it. The idea of a "missile truck" for air-to-air combat has long been a dream of fighter designers, notably in the U.S. Navy (in the form of the canceled F6D Missileer), but these designs were always found to be seriously flawed when the missiles turned out to have disappointing real-world performance compared to their paper predictions. This era appears to be at an end, and the concept of a long-range heavy missile-firing air-to-air platform appears to be a practical possibility, even for a large and unmaneuverable aircraft.
    B-1R concept.

    Boeing's proposal appears to modify the B-1B into a design able to serve these two purposes. For the bomb-truck role Boeing proposes the modification of existing external hardpoints to allow them to carry multiple conventional warheads, dramatically improving overall warload. For the air-to-air role, both defensive and offensive, they propose to add active electronically-scanned array radar and allow some of the hardpoints to carry AA missiles. Even with its somewhat reduced range as compared to the original B-1B, its fuel capacity remains quite large. This would allow it to escape from unfavorable air-to-air encounters by simply running away; there are few enough aircraft capable of Mach 2.2 performance in general, and those that are deployed can maintain these speeds for very short periods of time.

    In general terms the B-1R most closely resembles the original F-111 concept, as opposed to a pure bomber role. However it would be able to carry out these missions at ranges even greater than the F-111.
    http://bagera3005.deviantart.com/art...ancer-98328881

    The B-1R is a proposed replacement for the B-1B, created from the existing aircraft.[122] The B-1R (R for "regional") would be a Lancer with advanced radars, air-to-air missiles, and Pratt & Whitney F119 engines. Compared to the B-1B, the B-1R would have a higher top speed of Mach 2.2, but its range would be 20% less.[123]

    Existing external hardpoints would be modified to allow multiple conventional weapons to be carried, increasing overall loadout. For air-to-air defense, an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar would be added and some existing hardpoints modified to carry air-to-air missiles. If needed the B-1R could escape from unfavorable air-to-air encounters with its Mach 2+ speed. Few aircraft are capable of over Mach 2 speeds, and those that are can maintain these speeds for only very short periods of time.[122]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-1_Lancer#Variants
    So what do you guys think? Worth it?

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by fedr808 View Post
    So for those of you that don't know the B-1R (BoneR )
    So what do you guys think? Worth it?
    Seems the ground is covered by a lot of other options,... and reading this:

    "For every flight hour it needs 48.4 hours of repair." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer)

    I think something with fewer miles on the clock might be better bang for the buck.

  3. #3
    OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 NMSquirrel's Avatar
    Posts
    5,335
    yeah,but it just so cool looking..

  4. #4
    Be kind to yourself always. cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Posts
    30,639
    I don't see the need myself. America has more advanced weapons that any one in the world plus look at the places that this advanced stuff is being used and against whom.

  5. #5
    Penguinaciously duckalicious. Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Posts
    16,213
    I dunno. If I was up against a B-1R my first thought would be "Nice! large, expensive target!".
    It may be fast enough to run, but it's gotta turn away first... (and KS-172 is considerably faster than M=2.2).

  6. #6
    Seems the Russians are still building Tu-160's,.... I guess both sides see some benefit in being able to bomb the shit of somewhere, although I can't really think of a suitable target.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    I dunno. If I was up against a B-1R my first thought would be "Nice! large, expensive target!".
    It may be fast enough to run, but it's gotta turn away first... (and KS-172 is considerably faster than M=2.2).


    And plus, given the nature of it, its meant to run away from SAM sites and aaa defenses that are likely to come online after the bombs hit the ground.

    My impression of the B-1 is that of a bomber meant to sneak in, hit the target, and run as far away and as fast as it can.

    And the KS-172 is a missile for starters. And it doesn't matter how far it can go if it can't hit the plane. My impression of the missile is that of a weapon meant to scare away an enemy. Because 400km gives a plane literally minutes to react, get away, and deploy chaff.

    Dyw, this is a bomber, its not meant to be able to escape every air to air missile there is. Its merely a bomber with a better chance to escape them then most.

Similar Threads

  1. By Pollux V in forum SciFi & Fantasy
    Last Post: 02-14-14, 07:05 AM
    Replies: 23597

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •