• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

AMSA Program & B-1 Bomber projects

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,242
Reaction score
102
What a treat!! ;D

Thank you so much, and please do it again whenever you feel like it! ;)
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
1,450
Reaction score
95
Orionblamblam

The Boeing design looks very interesting... Waiting for more with many thanks..

Anything on AMSA is very rare as according to Tony Buttler most of the records
in US firms were just junked.

Maybe Ebay will yield some more models...

UK 75
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,421
Reaction score
283
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
This particualr AMSA concept was derived from Boeing SST studies. I'm hoping to get a higher resolution version of the artwork this was based on.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
24,320
Reaction score
1,091
Hi,


http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19800002822_1980002822.pdf
 

Attachments

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,024
Reaction score
217
Had a short look at this report. I think, the XB-70 is just chosen as an example for
tests of a wide range of Mach numbers, so isn't really related to the AMSA program.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,031
Reaction score
205
Here's a DTIC link to TECHNICAL DOCUMENTARY REPORT NO. ASD-TDR-62-426 from June 1962, regarding the Subsonic Low Altitude Bomber (SLAB).

ASD TDR 62-426
In Technological Force Structure Plan (TFSP) Task 9, interest was generated in strategic
aircraft which could attain extremely long strike ranges with penetrations performed
at very low altitude. The probability of penetration into enemy territory can be
increased significantly by low altitude flight. Consequently, a Subsonic Low Altitude
Bomber has been designed to satisfy a requirement for 12,500 nautical miles of range at
altitude with 12,500 pounds of payload. A sea level dash range of 2,500 nautical miles
was also required with a trade-off of not more than 2.5 miles of range at altitude for each
mile of sea level range. The specified minimum speed was Mach number 0.6. (S)
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
24,320
Reaction score
1,091
From Steve Pace book,


the North American/Rockwell D481-33.
 

Attachments

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,024
Reaction score
217
The North American AMSA design from 1968:
(from Dennis R.Jenkins "B-1 Lancer")
 

Attachments

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,031
Reaction score
205
A 1989 Air War College paper on the then limitations of, and possible options for, conventional weapons regarding the B-1B in the ETO: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a220571.pdf
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,631
Reaction score
1,161

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
24,320
Reaction score
1,091
Amazing drawings my dear Paul.
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,242
Reaction score
102
Absolutely splendid! Thanks for sharing.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,631
Reaction score
1,161
I posted their existence in this topic some time ago, but noone seemed to notice.

I recommend everyone check out www.codeonemagazine.com it has lots of PDF back issues with some cool articles as well as interesting online content.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,031
Reaction score
205
F-14D said:
Grey Havoc said:
A 1989 Air War College paper on the then limitations of, and possible options for, conventional weapons regarding the B-1B in the ETO: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a220571.pdf
Interesting paper, especially when you consider that use of conventional weapons was a major mission of the B-1A.
They made some ill-advised compromises with the B-1B design, in the interest of keeping costs down as well as optimising it for the low-level (nuclear) penetration role, which of course quickly backfired.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,737
Reaction score
21
Grey Havoc said:
F-14D said:
Grey Havoc said:
A 1989 Air War College paper on the then limitations of, and possible options for, conventional weapons regarding the B-1B in the ETO: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a220571.pdf
Interesting paper, especially when you consider that use of conventional weapons was a major mission of the B-1A.
They made some ill-advised compromises with the B-1B design, in the interest of keeping costs down as well as optimising it for the low-level (nuclear) penetration role, which of course quickly backfired.
They were certainly trying to reduce costs as well as make it more "stealthy" and pure nuke, but the A was also real good at low level flight
 

aim9xray

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
502
Reaction score
42
What were the ill-advised design compromises in the A-to-B evolution?
 

gtg947h

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
79
Reaction score
3
aim9xray said:
What were the ill-advised design compromises in the A-to-B evolution?
One of the more well-known ones was going from variable supersonic inlets to fixed ones with vanes to block the fan faces from radar. It reduced frontal RCS at the expense of a significant reduction in top speed at high altitude.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,031
Reaction score
205
F-14D said:
They were certainly trying to reduce costs as well as make it more "stealthy" and pure nuke, but the A was also real good at low level flight
Indeed. They should have stuck with the B-1A, though hindsight can be 20/20.

gtg947h said:
aim9xray said:
What were the ill-advised design compromises in the A-to-B evolution?
One of the more well-known ones was going from variable supersonic inlets to fixed ones with vanes to block the fan faces from radar. It reduced frontal RCS at the expense of a significant reduction in top speed at high altitude.
Another was the drastic reduction of the amount of titanium in the airframe.
 

GeorgeA

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
774
Reaction score
28
Here's an look at USAF thinking, 50 years ago this month, on future strategic aircraft. There are interesting discussions on expectations of progress in materials and propulsion by Flax and Schreiver, and three major concepts discussed:
  • RX, a very high-speed, high altitude penetrator (perhaps in the HSVS or Isinglass class) by Lockheed and McDonnell
  • AMP (Advanced Manned Penetrator), predecessor to AMSA and an ancestor of the B-1, by Convair, Boeing, and North American
  • MPLE, a long-endurance standoff platform that is in many ways the equivalent of a chemically-powered CAMAL
SLAM is also briefly mentioned. It's an intriguing snapshot in time, as the RS-70 would have been finally terminated, the RS-71 would have been waiting in the wings, ICBMs were being deployed rapidly, and advanced turbine, rocket, and other propulsion systems were on the horizon, so in some ways it was a unique opportunity for a new start on the strategic strike problem.


http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/1963/December%201963/1263decision.aspx
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,340
Reaction score
433
gtg947h said:
aim9xray said:
What were the ill-advised design compromises in the A-to-B evolution?
One of the more well-known ones was going from variable supersonic inlets to fixed ones with vanes to block the fan faces from radar. It reduced frontal RCS at the expense of a significant reduction in top speed at high altitude.
When they did the trade study they determined that the lower RCS made it more survivable despite the reduction in speed. So hardly "ill-advised".
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,737
Reaction score
21
sferrin said:
gtg947h said:
aim9xray said:
What were the ill-advised design compromises in the A-to-B evolution?
One of the more well-known ones was going from variable supersonic inlets to fixed ones with vanes to block the fan faces from radar. It reduced frontal RCS at the expense of a significant reduction in top speed at high altitude.
When they did the trade study they determined that the lower RCS made it more survivable despite the reduction in speed. So hardly "ill-advised".
I suspect it was more cost driven. Even if the B-1A had gone into production, there would have been some changes. For one thing, the requirement for M1.2 on the deck was going to be lowered to .9; it had been shown that lowering the speed by .3M did not lead to a significant increase in vulnerability, but would save a lot of money, and lighten the aircraft. Also, in production B-1As the variable inlets would be retained, but they would be disabled in peacetime use. There isn't that much proficiency benefit from flying at M2, and a lot of maintenance $ would be saved. IN war, they would push the circuit breakers back in and you'd get back the M2. F-14D (no, not me) did the same thing.

In the B-1B, of course the variables weren't there at all. Given that the B would never fly at ~M2, the decision was made to lighten the wing structure as well to save weight and cost. I suspect, though, they could have gotten the frontal RCS down to nearly that level with the variables in place, but it would take money and time, and they wanted those a/c available soonest. We forget in our now glacial development speeds, that they designed, ordered, tested, produced and delivered 100 a/c in less than seven years. In fact, all 100 B-1Bs were delivered in a space of less than three years.

So simplicity and cost were big factors, which is why I think the seed reduction was cost driven. It's also why, as delivered the B-1B was a less flexible aircraft than the B-1A would have been, although it did have greater range.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
640
Reaction score
12
A few questions if anybody here knows the answers. Were the prototype B-1As actually capable of a M1.2 speed at low level or was that planned for production aircraft prior to that requirement change?

Regarding external weapons carriage, were those racks for the ACM the same that would have been used for the older ALCM as well? I don't see anything outboard of the second row of racks, where supposedly 2 additional ALCMs would be carried individually for a total of 14.

With the exception of the much later "B-1R" proposal was there any consideration for other weapons to be carried externally?
 

quellish

I am not actually here.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,068
Reaction score
24
Colonial-Marine said:
Regarding external weapons carriage, were those racks for the ACM the same that would have been used for the older ALCM as well? I don't see anything outboard of the second row of racks, where supposedly 2 additional ALCMs would be carried individually for a total of 14.
Nope. Those pylons were very specific to the ACM. The B-1 was designed to carry ALCM externally but that was never flight tested as far as I have been able to find. Only the ACM was, and that was a different configuration than was designed for the ALCM.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,340
Reaction score
433
quellish said:
Nope. Those pylons were very specific to the ACM. The B-1 was designed to carry ALCM externally but that was never flight tested as far as I have been able to find. Only the ACM was, and that was a different configuration than was designed for the ALCM.
IIRC the ACM was designed specifically for supersonic external carriage. (Whether a B-1 could go supersonic with a bunch of them hanging off it is another matter.) With AGM-86 that option would not be in the cards.
 

BillRo

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Senior Member
Joined
May 12, 2008
Messages
169
Reaction score
30
Although not unbuilt, here is a Bone with a Sniper Pod attached to the starboard fwd hard point. The aircraft was from Dyess and was at the recent Davis Monthan air show in Tucson.
 

Attachments

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
40
Boeing Exploring Enhanced Close-Air-Support Capabilities For B-1
Helmet demo slated for the fall

B-1 Lancer manufacturer Boeing is investing in research to support a slate of potential upgrades that would enhance the platform's ability to perform an increasing load of close-air-support missions.

The bomber has in recent years taken on a greater portion of CAS missions, particularly as part of ongoing operations in the Middle East. According to Boeing's director of B-1 advanced programs, Dan Ruder, the platform is due for a series of upgrades to help support that broadening mission set. In an Aug. 11 interview, Ruder said the company is investing in enhancements to the B-1's helmet and weapons carriage options.

B-1 pilots and crewmembers currently operate with a standard helmet that does not feature a heads-up display or cueing system. Ruder said that as he talks to pilots returning from forward operating locations, he consistently hears of the challenges associated with pilots and weapon system operators trying to visualize a common target.

"They've run into issues where it has taken hours to try to talk a weapon system operator onto a particular spot of interest," Ruder said. "In some cases they haven't been able to talk them on at all, and of course with time-sensitive targets, that's just not acceptable."

That communication is especially difficult in terrain that lacks man-made objects or reference points, Ruder said.

To help address this problem, Boeing is working to develop a helmet-mounted cueing system (HMCS) that would attach to a B-1 pilot's helmet and allow them to pass coordinates of a particular target on the ground -- simply by looking at it -- to the weapon system operator. The company, with cooperation from Air Force Global Strike Command, has demonstrated the capability in a laboratory environment and is planning a ground demonstration at Dyess Air Force Base, TX, in October or November.

"In the lab environment, we had to simulate a lot of that so this will be the first time we actually do a demonstration with the real aircraft and the real targeting pod," he said.

Ruder said along with enhancing the passage of targeting information, the HMCS brings added visualization to a platform that is starting to run out of room for displays. The company has experimented with adding a capability to the HMCS which would project a virtual display into the helmet. He said this capability would have benefits not just for the pilot but for the rest of the crew.

"If that's something the Air Force thinks is a capability that would be beneficial, they could put virtual displays up into their helmet-mounted cueing system to give them more information or give them the information they need at that particular time," he said. "So we're going to demonstrate that as well."

Ruder noted that the helmet could also have benefits for B-52 crewmembers as that platform also performs close-air-support missions. He said the company doesn't have plans to demonstrate HMCS on the B-52, but he noted that the Air Force's decision to move the B-1 to Global Strike Command creates more opportunities for B-1 capabilities to transfer to other platforms and vice versa.

Boeing is investing its own independent research and development dollars in the effort, but Ruder said the company has had discussions about transitioning the system to a program of record should the service decide to move forward following the ground demonstration. Should the Air Force choose not to invest in the system right away, Ruder said Boeing would likely continue with some low-level investment but not with the same emphasis it has now.

The program has seen some success with transitioning internal research and development (IRAD) efforts like this into formal programs, Ruder said, and he cited the B-1's targeting pod as an example. When the company first started investigating the possibility of adding a targeting pod to the B-1, the Air Force didn't view the aircraft as a close-air-support platform. Still, Boeing decided to invest, expecting that there would be a future need for the capability. When the Air Force did decide to pull the trigger, the technology was available off the shelf.

"The Air Force is focused on fighting the current battle and here in industry, what we can do is sometimes we can look out and look at what we think future capabilities are or future needs would be," he said.

Another area of investment aimed at enhancing the B-1's CAS mission is expanded weapons carriage -- both to increase the number of Joint Direct Attack Munitions the bomber can carry and to integrate the Small Diameter Bomb onto the platform. Right now, the B-1 can carry 24 2,000-pound JDAMS and 15 500-pound JDAMS, both weapons that are typically used for CAS missions. The company in 2010 demonstrated what it calls a two-position multiple ejector rack that would allow the B-1 to carry 48 500-pound JDAMs. The new rack would not increase the B-1's carriage capacity but it would allow the platform flexibility in which weapons it carries.

For now, the capability is on the shelf ready to be used should the Air Force recognize a need for it.

The B-1 does not currently carry the Small Diameter Bomb, but Boeing is exploring integration on the B-1, which could carry 96 SDBs.

"There's already a multiple ejector rack developed for the Small Diameter Bomb, which is used on the fighters," Ruder said. "All we would have to do is integrate that onto our rotary launcher and of course do the software to interface with it."

Ruder said there have been some studies looking at the complexity of SDB integration and that there is some interest from the Air Force, but cost is a constraint.

"With the fiscal environment that we're in, they have their hands full just fighting the current fight and keeping the airplane sustained," he said. -- Courtney Albon
 

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,164
Reaction score
154
Some nice pictures and drawings showing the early B-1A.
Link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/aahs_archives/sets/72157655832825103
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,806
Reaction score
264
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD3I0waAUag
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
34
Hi all, let me revive this old topic:
link to WIND TUNNEL INVESTIGATION OF A 1/9-SCALE BOEING COMPANY AMSA AIRPLANE- INLET MODEL AT TRANSONIC AND SUPERSONIC MACH NUMBERS.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/385284.pdf

Aircraft very similar to the traced out sketch published by Scott along time ago. From the wind tunnels model, they tried out three-engined configurations too.

And
Wind Tunnel Investigation of a 1/8-Scale AMSA Aircraft-Inlet Model at Transonic and Supersonic Mach Numbers from GD published here and on which a rather complete report exist on DTIC.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/385450.pdf
Very similar to the above mentioned well known AMPSS configuration.
 
Top