North American Rockwell / Boeing B-1B

Okay, let's assume that low alt is somehow viable against properly prepared AD net (no). Why swing wing?
Low altitude, slow flight needs the control and lift.
And why you can't have that with fixed integral layout?
Because they had swing-wings in the seventies, just like they build a plane around a cannon in the seventies, therefore they should do that now.

Why do people even respond to him when he gets going like this?
 
Okay, let's assume that low alt is somehow viable against properly prepared AD net (no). Why swing wing?
Low altitude, slow flight needs the control and lift.
And why you can't have that with fixed integral layout?
There is benefit from lower weight in varible geometry wing which can swing back for high speed and swept forward for low altitude. A fixed is only partially beneficial for either.
 
Okay, let's assume that low alt is somehow viable against properly prepared AD net (no). Why swing wing?
Low altitude, slow flight needs the control and lift.
And why you can't have that with fixed integral layout?
Because they had swing-wings in the seventies, just like they build a plane around a cannon in the seventies, therefore they should do that now.

Why do people even respond to him when he gets going like this?
I wouldnt respond either. ;)
 
Lower weight. With swing wing... On stealthy platform...

Mkay I'm out.
Navalized F-22 concept has been well known for sometime;)
 

Attachments

  • Navalized F-22.jpg
    Navalized F-22.jpg
    103.9 KB · Views: 70
  • Navalized F-22a.jpg
    Navalized F-22a.jpg
    107.6 KB · Views: 62
  • Navalized F-22b.jpg
    Navalized F-22b.jpg
    58.9 KB · Views: 70
  • Navalized F-22c.jpg
    Navalized F-22c.jpg
    500.9 KB · Views: 101
Okay, let's assume that low alt is somehow viable against properly prepared AD net (no). Why swing wing?
Low altitude, slow flight needs the control and lift.
And why you can't have that with fixed integral layout?
There is benefit from lower weight in varible geometry wing which can swing back for high speed and swept forward for low altitude. A fixed is only partially beneficial for either.
As other contributors have already noted variable geometry “swing wings” always weigh more than “fixed” wing alternatives. However “swing wings” can offer other advantages that may more than compensate for that weight-disadvantage depending on the intended mission profiles and other design trade-offs.
The fact that one particular contributor appears not to understand that at all puts the rest of his comments and claims into suitable context.
 
It’s always fun reading the opinions of arm chair engineers and scientists who don’t have one tenth of the information at the Pentagon or the people designing these systems. I’m not saying they’re always right, but a hypersonic bomber is one of the dumbest ideas I’ve read about, at least in the manned classic sense. In fact, we already have hypersonic bombers, they’re called ICBMs.

Second, the B-21’s payload is perfect for it’s mission it doesn’t need to carry more. A larger payload means a larger aircraft which means an easier to detect aircraft and fewer assets. The Pentagon wants more distributed assets, that can search out larger areas, in combination, apparently, with RQ-180s and other systems. A distributed system with many smaller nodes is more robust than a system with fewer larger nodes. I realize that doesn’t appeal to the fanboy cool looking stuff in all of us (Myself included), but that isn’t what determines the system should be. I mean, hypersonic? They went from supersonic to subsonic just on the huge cost differential between those two systems. Remember, the system difference isn’t just the airframe, it’s all of the other systems required to make it work. Thermal, targeting, ECS, Maintenance, etc.

I know nobody wants to hear this, but UCAVs and missiles (the hypersonic part of combat) are the future of air combat. There will be manned systems with them to help manage the battle, but given the current state of technology, the human limits what is possible and the military is intent on removing that limitation as much as possible.

It's the Starship and BFR. The B-21 is supposed to be the manned node in the system. Apparently, people don't understand that money isn't unlimited and that there are trade offs.
 
Lower weight. With swing wing... On stealthy platform...

Mkay I'm out.
Navalized F-22 concept has been well known for sometime;)
The two on the left are not the NATF-22. They're LM A/FX concepts.
Those swing wings remind me of the lesson learned on the f-111 where they encroached into the fuselage area and took away volume for fuel, which led to the design of the f-14.
 
Okay, let's assume that low alt is somehow viable against properly prepared AD net (no). Why swing wing?
Low altitude, slow flight needs the control and lift.
And why you can't have that with fixed integral layout?
There is benefit from lower weight in varible geometry wing which can swing back for high speed and swept forward for low altitude. A fixed is only partially beneficial for either.
As other contributors have already noted variable geometry “swing wings” always weigh more than “fixed” wing alternatives. However “swing wings” can offer other advantages that may more than compensate for that weight-disadvantage depending on the intended mission profiles and other design trade-offs.
The fact that one particular contributor appears not to understand that at all puts the rest of his comments and claims into suitable context.
Minor weight penalty has nothing to w/ operational goals an maneuver dominance.
Swing Wings have always proved superior. Whenever the F-15 faced a F-14 in games it lost to the F-14 which was a larger aircraft for instance. Low altitude performance always comes back into vogue. The A-10s retention over replacement by the F-35 is prorof
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lower weight. With swing wing... On stealthy platform...

Mkay I'm out.
Navalized F-22 concept has been well known for sometime;)
The two on the left are not the NATF-22. They're LM A/FX concepts.

In truth, the USN, who were stinging over the ATA debacle, having a hard time accepting the F/A-18E/F as a retrograde step back from a key USN requirement for radius (effectively removing them from the OPP game) put a lot more effort into refining the A/FX base design to regain both baseline kinematic performance in burner and to recapture range lost to the F-22/F119 choice.

They believed the A/FX would have near equal pitch performance and equal or better, low speed lift curves, at low fuel weights, to the F-14. But it was a platform designed around stealth which meant one fully capable of fighting with the wings fully swept, at very high transonic speeds.
 
Okay, let's assume that low alt is somehow viable against properly prepared AD net (no). Why swing wing?
Low altitude, slow flight needs the control and lift.
And why you can't have that with fixed integral layout?
There is benefit from lower weight in varible geometry wing which can swing back for high speed and swept forward for low altitude. A fixed is only partially beneficial for either.
As other contributors have already noted variable geometry “swing wings” always weigh more than “fixed” wing alternatives. However “swing wings” can offer other advantages that may more than compensate for that weight-disadvantage depending on the intended mission profiles and other design trade-offs.
The fact that one particular contributor appears not to understand that at all puts the rest of his comments and claims into suitable context.
Minor weight penalty has nothing to w/ operational goals an maneuver dominance.
Swing Wings have always proved superior. Whenever the F-15 faced a F-14 in games it lost to the F-14 which was a larger aircraft for instance. Low altitude performance always comes back into vogue. The A-10s retention over replacement by the F-35 is prorof
The above contribution proves the writer knows nothing about designing aircraft in the modern context. If one doesnt follow the contemporary material and mechanical developments let alone what the operational benefits of technologies then one would better save our time. The contributor seems to have nothing except emotional attacks on myself w; no new information to offer. We have not seen a touch of technical argument posted from this contributior. More like the contributor's strategy is to add nothing and provoked me to be banned. They would be great, but I contribute and have not see how he has.
Swing wings don’t carry a small weight penalty and they certainly have not always proved superior.
And if that was the case where were/are all the swing-wing fighter aircraft entering production and service after the F-14 and the Tornado (or the Su-24, etc.)?
Even for larger bombers the fixed-wing flying wing configuration over took the swing-wing B-1/ Tu-160 configuration that was previously favoured for a number of valid reasons (all designs each being a collection of various trade-offs).
Directly addressing your statements above my understanding is that the F-15 more-often-than-not beat the F-14 in DACT but that was due to a number of factors and certainly wasn’t all down to fixed-wing versus swing-wing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay, let's assume that low alt is somehow viable against properly prepared AD net (no). Why swing wing?
Low altitude, slow flight needs the control and lift.
And why you can't have that with fixed integral layout?
There is benefit from lower weight in varible geometry wing which can swing back for high speed and swept forward for low altitude. A fixed is only partially beneficial for either.
As other contributors have already noted variable geometry “swing wings” always weigh more than “fixed” wing alternatives. However “swing wings” can offer other advantages that may more than compensate for that weight-disadvantage depending on the intended mission profiles and other design trade-offs.
The fact that one particular contributor appears not to understand that at all puts the rest of his comments and claims into suitable context.
Minor weight penalty has nothing to w/ operational goals an maneuver dominance.
Swing Wings have always proved superior. Whenever the F-15 faced a F-14 in games it lost to the F-14 which was a larger aircraft for instance. Low altitude performance always comes back into vogue. The A-10s retention over replacement by the F-35 is prorof
The above contribution proves the writer knows nothing about designing aircraft in the modern context. If one doesnt follow the contemporary material and mechanical developments let alone what the operational benefits of technologies then one would better save our time. The contributor seems to have nothing except emotional attacks on myself w; no new information to offer. We have not seen a touch of technical argument posted from this contributior. More like the contributor's strategy is to add nothing and provoked me to be banned. They would be great, but I contribute and have not see how he has.
Swing wings don’t carry a small weight penalty and they certainly have not always proved superior.
And if that was the case where were/are all the swing-wing fighter aircraft entering production and service after the F-14 and the Tornado (or the Su-24, etc.)?
Even for larger bombers the fixed-wing flying wing configuration over took the swing-wing B-1/ Tu-160 configuration that was previously favoured for a number of valid reasons (all designs each being a collection of various trade-offs).
Directly addressing your statements above my understanding is that the F-15 more-often-than-not beat the F-14 in DACT but that was due to a number of factors and certainly wasn’t all down to fixed-wing versus swing-wing.

I would suggest you and the forum would be marginally better-off if you stop pretending to talk authoritatively about subjects you appear to know little to nothing about. Your aggressive ignorance and/ or active trolling is not helping to inform anyone.
As stated above th USN would have prefered the Swing wing as the carrier craft that would be inservice today. So your talking boderdash again. You clearly have no knowledge of where material and mechanical systems which could render these systems even lighter. The performance is unmatched. Morphing wing tech (which adds no weight) so vigously pursued by AFRL is a version of swing capability as an example. High strenght composites etc also render varible geometry systems very light. Tornado, B-1 and Soviet era tech is ancient.

I would suggest you and the forum would be marginally better-off if you stop pretending to talk authoritatively about subjects you appear to know little to nothing about. Your aggressive ignorance and/ or active trolling is not helping to inform anyone.
 
Last edited:

USN prefered the swing wing to further combat radius ie back to Gerald Ford thread discussing the inferior carrier F/A-18E/F.

In truth, the USN, who were stinging over the ATA debacle,
having a hard time accepting the F/A-18E/F as a retrograde step back from a key USN requirement for radius (effectively removing them from the OPP game) put a lot more effort into refining the A/FX base design to regain both baseline kinematic performance in burner and to recapture range lost to the F-22/F119 choice.


 
Last edited:
I believe one of the proposed F-3 variants had a swing tail that laid flat after takeoff. Otherwise no one's seriously proposed one outside of a research project.
 
Whilst swing wings provide good low altitude performance, they're not essential for even aircraft developed for low alt missions. Hence the TSR2 and the Buccaneer. Heck, the Su-24 had fixed TSR2 style delta wings in its initial mockup stage. And of course, swing-wing advantages are not really advantages today. Medium to high altitude attacks can be made with the advantages of stealth and/or standoff munitions.

And it has to be remembered the MiG-21 has generally outlasted the more advanced swing-wing MiG-23. The 'Flogger's' swing-wings offer next to no advantages for most MiG-21 operators.
 
Whilst swing wings provide good low altitude performance, they're not essential for even aircraft developed for low alt missions. Hence the TSR2 and the Buccaneer. Heck, the Su-24 had fixed TSR2 style delta wings in its initial mockup stage. And of course, swing-wing advantages are not really advantages today. Medium to high altitude attacks can be made with the advantages of stealth and/or standoff munitions.

And it has to be remembered the MiG-21 has generally outlasted the more advanced swing-wing MiG-23. The 'Flogger's' swing-wings offer next to no advantages for most MiG-21 operators.

It certainly offered the Tomcat advantages, which is why the LM NATF would have used one.
 
It certainly offered the Tomcat advantages, which is why the LM NATF would have used one.
[/QUOTE]

True. But then the USN is in a different league to certain other air arms who have rather more basic air defence needs. Hence the MiG-21 which like the similar-sized US F-5 can be upgraded with today's modern solid-state avionics and stay pretty relevant. Should be also noted that the F-4 has generally outlasted its main swing-wing rival the MiG-23 despite like the MiG-21 being several years older.
 
To bring this somewhat back on topic and conclude this misguided “swing-wing” digression; is there ANY current indication that the B-21, or in their nations equivalent next generation bombers (i.e. the B-1B’s replacement and equivalent Chinese and Russian new bomber aircraft) will have swing-wings?
Apart from Russia’s additional Tu-160’s?
My understanding is that’s currently a “No”.
 
To bring this somewhat back on topic and conclude this misguided “swing-wing” digression; is there ANY current indication that the B-21, or in their nations equivalent next generation bombers (i.e. the B-1B’s replacement and equivalent Chinese and Russian new bomber aircraft) will have swing-wings?
Apart from Russia’s additional Tu-160’s?
My understanding is that’s currently a “No”.
jeepers, for anyone paying attention it was made clear that the USN had prefered a a varible geometry wing NATF over what they got which is the F/A-18 and F-35 which render the carrier wing a questionable contributor. A Sec Def revealed the the existence of "stealth F-111" which might look like the the proposed LM VS-07.
 

Attachments

  • Rumsfeld1.jpg
    Rumsfeld1.jpg
    27.6 KB · Views: 65
  • Rumsfeld2.jpg
    Rumsfeld2.jpg
    204.8 KB · Views: 63
  • Rumsfeld3.jpg
    Rumsfeld3.jpg
    2.3 KB · Views: 64
  • Rumsfeld4.jpg
    Rumsfeld4.jpg
    43.3 KB · Views: 62
What has the approx 20 year old NATF have to do with the B-1B and it’s real replacement?
And from when exactly does that swing-wing design you’ve included above date from?
Presumably it was unsuccessful- lost out to the B-21 or comfortably preceded it?
Any reputable sources for your reference to a “stealth F-111”, and if so was it a reference to a theatre bomber or was there any actual indication of swing-wings?
 
What has the approx 20 year old NATF have to do with the B-1B and it’s real replacement?
And from when exactly does that swing-wing design you’ve included above date from?
Presumably it was unsuccessful- lost out to the B-21 or comfortably preceded it?
Any reputable sources for your reference to a “stealth F-111”, and if so was it a reference to a theatre bomber or was there any actual indication of swing-wings?
You keep beleiveing what your saying..
 
What has the approx 20 year old NATF have to do with the B-1B and it’s real replacement?
And from when exactly does that swing-wing design you’ve included above date from?
Presumably it was unsuccessful- lost out to the B-21 or comfortably preceded it?
Any reputable sources for your reference to a “stealth F-111”, and if so was it a reference to a theatre bomber or was there any actual indication of swing-wings?
You keep beleiveing what your saying..

Sorry meant to say 30 year old NATF design...
I think other readers will note the absence of any real response from you and will make their own minds up on the weight to give to your preceding contributions.
 
What has the approx 20 year old NATF have to do with the B-1B and it’s real replacement?
And from when exactly does that swing-wing design you’ve included above date from?
Presumably it was unsuccessful- lost out to the B-21 or comfortably preceded it?
Any reputable sources for your reference to a “stealth F-111”, and if so was it a reference to a theatre bomber or was there any actual indication of swing-wings?
You keep beleiveing what your saying..

Sorry meant to say 30 year old NATF design...
I think other readers will note the absence of any real response from you and will make their own minds up on the weight to give to your preceding contributions.
..had stopped contributing as you have some time ago. VG is still and option in aircraft development.. We are just bantering.
 
What has the approx 20 year old NATF have to do with the B-1B and it’s real replacement?
And from when exactly does that swing-wing design you’ve included above date from?
Presumably it was unsuccessful- lost out to the B-21 or comfortably preceded it?
Any reputable sources for your reference to a “stealth F-111”, and if so was it a reference to a theatre bomber or was there any actual indication of swing-wings?
You keep beleiveing what your saying..

Sorry meant to say 30 year old NATF design...
I think other readers will note the absence of any real response from you and will make their own minds up on the weight to give to your preceding contributions.
..had stopped contributing as you have some time ago. VG is still and option in aircraft development.. We are just bantering.
Forward swept wings are also an option in aircraft development.
 
What has the approx 20 year old NATF have to do with the B-1B and it’s real replacement?
And from when exactly does that swing-wing design you’ve included above date from?
Presumably it was unsuccessful- lost out to the B-21 or comfortably preceded it?
Any reputable sources for your reference to a “stealth F-111”, and if so was it a reference to a theatre bomber or was there any actual indication of swing-wings?
You keep beleiveing what your saying..

Sorry meant to say 30 year old NATF design...
I think other readers will note the absence of any real response from you and will make their own minds up on the weight to give to your preceding contributions.
..had stopped contributing as you have some time ago. VG is still and option in aircraft development.. We are just bantering.
Forward swept wings are also an option in aircraft development.
for dogfighter specific IMHO they are prefered.
 
To bring this somewhat back on topic and conclude this misguided “swing-wing” digression; is there ANY current indication that the B-21, or in their nations equivalent next generation bombers (i.e. the B-1B’s replacement and equivalent Chinese and Russian new bomber aircraft) will have swing-wings?
Apart from Russia’s additional Tu-160’s?
My understanding is that’s currently a “No”.
jeepers, for anyone paying attention it was made clear that the USN had prefered a a varible geometry wing NATF over what they got which is the F/A-18 and F-35 which render the carrier wing a questionable contributor. A Sec Def revealed the the existence of "stealth F-111" which might look like the the proposed LM VS-07.

I know a little the story you're talking about. Sometime in the 90s a SecDef and the SecUSAF had proposed the usaf field a stealthy swing low altitude penetrator to take over the role of the retired F-111and to replace the strike eagle. It went no where. They allegedly wanted to buy something like 400 of these monsters. What we got instead was more funding for the JSF and the super hornet. Its probably in a book i read and others here can probably correct me if I recall this wrong.

If its true then its awfully revealing that the problems of swing wings and stealth are solvable and the US stealth know how has moved beyond simple shaping. At least that’s what I read into it.
 
I know a little the story you're talking about. Sometime in the 90s a SecDef and the SecUSAF had proposed the usaf field a stealthy swing low altitude penetrator to take over the role of the retired F-111and to replace the strike eagle. It went no where. They allegedly wanted to buy something like 400 of these monsters. What we got instead was more funding for the JSF and the super hornet. Its probably in a book i read and others here can probably correct me if I recall this wrong.

If its true then its awfully revealing that the problems of swing wings and stealth are solvable and the US stealth know how has moved beyond simple shaping. At least that’s what I read into it.

Sounds a bit like the mythical A-17 that as far as I know was only mentioned in Popular Science.

 
Last edited:
I know a little the story you're talking about. Sometime in the 90s a SecDef and the SecUSAF had proposed the usaf field a stealthy swing low altitude penetrator to take over the role of the retired F-111and to replace the strike eagle. It went no where. They allegedly wanted to buy something like 400 of these monsters. What we got instead was more funding for the JSF and the super hornet. Its probably in a book i read and others here can probably correct me if I recall this wrong.

If its true then its awfully revealing that the problems of swing wings and stealth are solvable and the US stealth know how has moved beyond simple shaping. At least that’s what I read into it.

Sounds a bit like the mythical A-17 that as far as I know was only mentioned in Popular Mechanics.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4357755/11-L-0559-First-Release-Bates-1-912.pdf

In April 2001, former Secretary of the Air Force Don Rice sent Rumsfeld a letter arguing for the restart of the B-2 program, complete with diagrams supposedly showcasing the cost savings of payload delivery by B-2 compared to an equivalent payload weight delivered by cruise missiles. In that letter, Rice suggests that “a long-range, dwell capability for electronic combat-manned or unmanned-would be valuable in many circumstances,” foreshadowing the long-endurance drones of the 2010s, and possibly even anticipating the optionally manned nature of the still-in-development B-21 bomber. Rice also suggested that the Air Force abandon the Joint Strike Fighter program and a proposed “stealthy F-111” program, ,,,

VG and or BWB would assist in dwell
The F/A-18 was not what the USN wanted and now the carrier aviation wing is about half century out of date in a peer.to.peer fight.
 
Last edited:
The swing wing is more complex and hence will require more maintenance. That is easily determined using engineering failure mode analysis techniques. With the advent of Computational Fluid Dynamics software and other Finite Element design tools you can develop wings which encompass lift enhancement devices for take-offs and landings while retaining good cruise performance all without swinging the wing. The swing wing was an evolutionary step that has seen its day. Why go backwards to swing wings when you can get as good or better performance from other designs? None of the 6th gen fighter designs to date show a swing wing nor does the B-21 or a whole bunch of UCAV's.
 
Unless someone displays that AFRL has terminated morphing wing technology dev (a type VG) one would have to beg to differ.
 
Video shows an air-breathing missile, so this is not a Skybolt descendant.
 

Attachments

  • Rhfv8q4sUCzAfjmo.mp4_snapshot_00.00_[2020.09.03_17.58.33].jpg
    Rhfv8q4sUCzAfjmo.mp4_snapshot_00.00_[2020.09.03_17.58.33].jpg
    150.8 KB · Views: 168
  • Rhfv8q4sUCzAfjmo.mp4_snapshot_00.07_[2020.09.03_17.58.54].jpg
    Rhfv8q4sUCzAfjmo.mp4_snapshot_00.07_[2020.09.03_17.58.54].jpg
    302.5 KB · Views: 159
Back
Top Bottom