B-1R Lancer

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by fedr808, May 6, 2011.

?

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

  1. Yes

    3 vote(s)
    75.0%
  2. No

    1 vote(s)
    25.0%
  1. fedr808

    fedr808 1100101

    So for those of you that don't know the B-1R (BoneR :cool:) 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
    http://bagera3005.deviantart.com/art/Boeing-B-1R-Lancer-98328881

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-1_Lancer#Variants
    So what do you guys think? Worth it?
     
  2. phlogistician

    phlogistician Banned

    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. NMSquirrel

    NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12

    yeah,but it just so cool looking..:rolleyes:
     
  4. cosmictraveler

    cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always.

    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. Dywyddyr

    Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious.

    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. phlogistician

    phlogistician Banned

    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. fedr808

    fedr808 1100101



    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.
     

Share This Page