Jump to content


Photo

The Air Force Is Exploring A Deadly New Role For The B-1B Lancer


  • Please log in to reply
165 replies to this topic

#161 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,753 posts

Posted 14 July 2018 - 0446 AM

 

You may be surprised at how "low end" the processors are in military equipment.

+Lot

As long as it can do required differential equations in real time what is a reason for better? :)

 

The circuit plans aren't the issue in many cases, but the technology used is often so old that there's little suitable production capacity left (if any). That's an issue regarding spare parts supply.


  • 0

#162 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,311 posts

Posted 16 July 2018 - 0516 AM

Kinda sorta, but not really.

Inventory is kept sufficient for notional (contractual) system availability for the system lifetime, unless there is a built-in MLU, in which case a lot of that goes into replacing obsolete LRUs. It's usually an opportunity for functional upgrades too as replacement hardware will usually have more capability.
  • 0

#163 Special-K

Special-K

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 765 posts

Posted 16 September 2019 - 2030 PM

https://www.popularm...-range-weapons/


The bomber, belonging to the 412th Test Wing, includes an improved middle bomb bay expanded from 15 feet to nearly 22.5 feet. That's large enough to carry a future hypersonic weapon. Hypersonic missiles travel at speeds of Mach 5 and above, giving enemy forces little time to react.

The second improvement involves carrying weapons externally. The B-1B was designed to carry nuclear-tipped Air Launched Cruise Missiles on external pylons, but doing so would have compromised the bomber's stealthy design and the Air Force never trained with them. Now the service wants to resurrect that capability, giving the bomber the ability to carry 16 missiles on six external pylons.

A B-1B can already carry 24 Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM), and an upgraded B-1B could carry 40 JASSMs. Two B-1Bs launched 19 JASSM missiles against chemical weapons facilities in Syria in April 2018. In the future, just two B-1Bs could launch up to 80 missiles. The B-1 fleet could likely carry an identical number of Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles (LRASM), a new ship-killing missile based on the JASSM.



Thoughts /comments?

Is the potential reactivation of the external weapons pylons related to the death of the INF Treaty?

Either way, that's a whole lot of missiles - especially the LRASM version of the JASSM. Just a handful of Bones could wipe out a significant portion of the Chinese fleet - which is good because apparently we only have a handful of FMC airframes.


-K
  • 0

#164 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,585 posts

Posted 17 September 2019 - 0109 AM

The hypersonics are easier to integrate on the B-52, and the fleet has better range and availability. Since hypersonics have ranges in the thousands of km, penetration is of little value.

The external hard points could be useful, but only if there actually is a need for that many weapons to be concentrated on one platform - currently the USAF only has around 40 LRASM, for instance. Also the RCS and performance of the B-1 would be greatly compromised. Two dozen missiles internally was already about the heaviest payload option available for the aircraft.

I believe the original START treaty banned external ordnance, but that probably doesnt apply since the fleet has been denuclearized and New START has replaced it.

I would love to hear CalvinB1Navs opinion though.
  • 0

#165 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,585 posts

Posted 17 September 2019 - 0313 AM

Also its worth noting these arent improvements; theB-1 was built with the adjustable bulkhead and external hard points.
  • 0

#166 Calvinb1nav

Calvinb1nav

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 553 posts

Posted 27 September 2019 - 1430 PM

The hypersonics are easier to integrate on the B-52, and the fleet has better range and availability. Since hypersonics have ranges in the thousands of km, penetration is of little value.

The external hard points could be useful, but only if there actually is a need for that many weapons to be concentrated on one platform - currently the USAF only has around 40 LRASM, for instance. Also the RCS and performance of the B-1 would be greatly compromised. Two dozen missiles internally was already about the heaviest payload option available for the aircraft.

I believe the original START treaty banned external ordnance, but that probably doesnt apply since the fleet has been denuclearized and New START has replaced it.

I would love to hear CalvinB1Navs opinion though.

RCS isn't an issue as RCS maintenance hasn't been done on the B-1 in decades and so it doesn't meet the original specification anyways.  It would cause the jet to burn a lot more fuel though (the external tanks that were tested caused enough drag that they weren't worth it).  I'm not sure how we are getting around the treaties but they must have found a way.  

 

Carrying that many missiles would free up other platforms for other missions.  

 

At any rate, too bad we wore out the B-1 fleet in the Mid-East.  Shoulda bought AT-6s/Tucanos (or even a bomber variant of the Navy P-8) 10-15 years ago.  


Edited by Calvinb1nav, 27 September 2019 - 1430 PM.

  • 0