US Airforce B-1R
 

I was not aware of this aircraft, but the B-1 may get an extended lease on life it may seem.

Boeing page on the B-1R:
http://www.boeing.com/ids/allsystems...2/story01.html

A short video I pulled on how it would be deployed in combat in the air to air role (this is how I first heard of it in the first place):
http://www.veoh.com/videos/v9988640b476AWQQ

So has anyone else heard of this new role for the B-1 program? I must be living in the dark ages since I never even knew this idea existed.

-S

http://img310.imageshack.us/img310/9489/irak3b1aea0.jpg

:ping: :up: :rock:

I didn't know about this either. But me thinks it will never get past the concept stage. They couldn't even fund the last block upgrade in its entirety for the B-1.

PD

On Friday night History channel did a bit on future dog fights.

In it they indicated that the Raptor was the first 5th generation fighter.

They played out a scenario with a squadron of 4 Raptors taking on a mixed bag of 4 th generation fighters.

After the Raptors took out the first wave of enemy fighters a second wave of about 20 showed up. The Scenario then switched from the Raptor to the B-1R as a missile platform with the Raptors providing intel on the approaching enemy force and the B-1R firing long range volleys of AMRAMs at the enemy as directed by the invisible Raptors. The Raptors then closed and switched to short range missles.

It was an interesting show.

The HC indicated that the B-1R was not operational at the time they did the show and was still in proposal mode and that the AMRAM missiles in the scenario were not due to be operational till about 2010.

One of the things that caught my attention were the B-1Rs will use the new Pratt and Whitney Super cruise engines allowing them to do 1,500 mph without afterburners like the Raptor. ZOOM ZOOM.:D

That's because they planned to retire the B-1. Since Iraq and Afganistan however, military planners figured out what an asset this plane is. It carry's more bombs than any plane I know of - these planes in include the B-2 and B-52 - with 3 times the payload of a B-52 depending on what it is carrying!!! To a military planner, a single B-1 turned out to be a whole squadron of smaller fighters on the battlefield. So the 2001 decision to retire the B-1B was heavilly scaled back after it proved itself in our current wars.

This is where the B-1R comes from - military planners want even more capability. Seems like this plane can deliver, but I guess it always has to get past Congress eventually.

-S

PS. Here is the B-1B capacity for large JDAM's vs. other american bombers - notice that one single B-1 can carry more than 2x what a B-2 does, and 3x what a B-52 does! Now think what a B-1R would be like if it could carry even more!:


http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/8296/payloadspz7.gif

Where do ya think I got the above video from? :D :p

I have the whole program.

-S

Well I guess thats what the big H is in the corner of your video!:D

Interesting. Seems like it would be able to replace B-1 and B-52. And B-2 is useless, despite its stealthiness allowing it to operate independently...It never does. They simply don't want to risk something that expensive and always support the hell out of it with EW, SEAD, and fighter escort. So I wouldn't mind getting rid of those. B-1R seems to be made to operate with the Raptor.

I like it. Kinda reminds me of Dale Brown's Superfortress.

PD

We need the B-2. No way around it. We won't have a first strike bomber capability in the future if we got rid of B-2. No way, not even a B-1R, could penetrate the air defenses of a country with a few bucks in it pockets come even tomorrow. The B-2 is the only bomber that can go in with the first wave. So if you have some major Command and Control to knock out in the opening moments of an engagement, B-2 is the only answer for the job. The B-1 is only good after the C3 and air defenses has been neutralized. Hence why B-1 was on the chopping block in 2001.

-S

Jeez. Here I am arguing about airplanes with you again. Well, just the finer points this time. :)

See below. Bunker buster is what makes it worth keeping for a conventional war, IMO.

F-22 can and will be used for this in the future. And won't cost over a billion bucks if it gets popped. Though I'm not sure if you're talking nuclear strike or not...

Which seems to be its only worth in a conventional war, IMO. It can carry EGBU-28 while maintaining full VLO, nothing else can.

Which will be within the first hour of any conflict. Unless it's that only "near peer" that justifies all those platforms we're buying that are Cold War spec'd. ;)

Using B-2 to drop a command bunker in the near future may not be so viable. Because while invisible to radar, it will be optical and sound sensors that are cueing the next generation autonomously hunting SAMs. But again, only IMO. I hope I'm wrong.

PD

You're basing your opinions on a war with a semi poor country like Iraq. Try China - nothing will be gone in one hour. Or even North Korea for that matter. North Korea would make Iraq look like a cake walk. 80,000 shells should hit the South within your first hour.

-S

Considering how many of our troops are tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan,I'm surprised North Korea hasn't attacked South Korea. This is a golden opportunity for them.

On the other hand,attacking SK and the USA might just piss off China so maybe that's why NK is behaving itself.

This is what they want to do to keep the B-1 flying well into the next few decades?

Not going to happen... If the soviet union were still around maybe... But today FA-22s amd F-35s with highly trained pilots can do the job of removing any threat before bombers pour in and devestate.

No B-1 is ever going to face a fighter unless there is a SERIOUS blunder in planning.

As for China? When you look deep enough past the BS spin you note that their forces are pathetic. Their Aircraft are usually purchased or copied from russia and do not have as many advanced features. Their Navy would be wiped out with our Seawolves, 688s, Cruise Missiles, and the surface fleet. No the damage they can do is economic not military.

North Korea? Someone has been playing too much Falcon 4.0

Russia? They like to screw with us but they are making far too much money by NOT acting warlike. Any war situation would see their country ruined...

As for the future?

Long Range Railguns
Unmanned Aircraft
Lasers
Um... Skynet

Almost nothing outside of Star Trek can defend against a Railgun Shot.

And almost every gun that fired those shots would be plotted within seconds and picked off by return fire.

Wonders of radar

Some people have been reading too much Dale Brown.

Lets wait for the stealth B-52 proposal.