Christopher Wang
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 3 June 2021
- Messages
- 270
- Reaction score
- 568
I have one questions about this concept: how the heck will the gun even work when it takes up the same spot as the Lancer's nose gear? And don't get me started on how the ammo feed will work for such an arrangement.fightingirish said:The "R" stands for "regional".Triton said:Well, if Boeing cannot sell a new bomber, it will try to make money by rebuilding an old one. I wonder if the R really means "Refurb" or "Retrofit". Is the B-1R meant to be a replacement for the F-111 Aardvark?
Even the concept from bagera3005 has a V-Tail, how did we not noticed that item before?! :-[
![]()
Is that a gun under the nose?? Love it! After all, a warplane without a gun is a lot like Paris Hilton: Nice to look at, but ultimately quite useless ;D
Regards,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Denmark
It's just fan art, don't waste time worrying about it.I have one questions about this concept: how the heck will the gun even work when it takes up the same spot as the Lancer's nose gear? And don't get me started on how the ammo feed will work for such an arrangement.
There was once a plan to not only upgrade the B-1B for an extended lifespan, but to make it so much more than it is today. That proposal, dubbed the B-1R, would have equipped the Lancer with powerful new engines ripped straight out of the F-22 Raptor and it’s own bevy of AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, nearly doubling its top speed while giving this massive jet the means to hunt for and destroy any enemy fighter that flew its way.
Oh I'm certain they know. Only if I can confirm my suspicions on where do they get their infos.I doubtheghost writers even understand what R means in designation and what the real story behind its appearing was.
B-1R: Could it be the World's LARGEST Air Superiority Fighter?!Dive into the fascinating world of the B-1B Lancer, also known as "the Bone," in our latest video, "The B-1B Lancer: America's Supersonic Heavy Hitter." Discover how this powerful bomber, boasting a massive payload capacity of 75,000 pounds, has shaped aerial warfare. We'll explore its impressive history, including its original design for Soviet territory penetration and the ambitious B-1R upgrade proposal that aimed to enhance its capabilities. As the U.S. Air Force transitions to the B-21 Raider, learn about the enduring legacy and challenges faced by the aging fleet of B-1Bs.
I doubtheghost writers even understand what R means in designation and what the real story behind its appearing was.
Oh, hey, that's the Old Dog era Super Bone that Dale Brown wrote up! V-tail, exotic radar-absorbing skin materials, black anti-searchlight paint, packs a dozen or so AMRAAMs on external pylons (with a new radar to talk to them) and then the usual gigglefest of "if it fits it ships" with Quail decoys, AGM-130s, IIRC HARMs (and targeting system), and anything else you could think of to blast a Russian ASAT laser with nuclear powered radar off the face of the earth.View attachment 760302View attachment 760303View attachment 760304View attachment 760305![]()
Boeing MB-1R Cavalier
iiirdmillennium.blogspot.com
alternative Penetrating Counter Air
Bombashakalaka sleek stealth. It's media for public consumption, of course they're putting the coolest bondoggles on it.Why would it have a V-tail?
Nope, the B-1s also had a V-tail for some reason.Conflating. The V tailed bomber in Dale Brown's book is the B-52 known as the "Old Dog", not the B1.
I think he was talking about the follow-on B-1 based design to the 'production' EB-52 Megafortress in the continuity, the EB-1C Vampire.Conflating. The V tailed bomber in Dale Brown's book is the B-52 known as the "Old Dog", not the B1.
not superiorV tails r less drag, but w more complex pitch yaw control. Preferred configuration for the superior but ultimately losing x-32 jsf competitor.
Final Boeing JSF configuration was a four-poster. Engine on Boeing JSF was not "deep in the craft" at all.V tails r less drag, but w more complex pitch yaw control. Preferred configuration for the superior but ultimately losing x-32 jsf competitor.
X-32 had more internal payload space and didn't have a .5t shaft to deliver power to forward fan.not superior
in no wayAlways wondered how that was fitted in the bays.
I'm sure there is a topic more appropriate for such a debate but I'm not sure if it would be the X-32/F-32 thread or one of the other many JSF ones.X-32 had more internal payload space and didn't have a .5t shaft to deliver power to forward fan.
Carefully, I'm guessing. But on a more serious answer, possibly only 4 per rotary, but the rocket booster does fit within the "box" of the wings so it may not be as tough as we're assuming.View attachment 762741
Including an older pic of an AGM-130 being put on a Bone. Always wondered how that was fitted in the bays.
So where would it go? What is going on in this pic?in no way
I mean, the ALCM and SRAM are about 20" deep on the launch lugs.So where would it go? What is going on in this pic?
This appears to have happened in the early 90s, since the Bone is
still in the original "Strategic Scheme" paint.
Not sure the AGM-130 is a regular inventory load, since the colors
don't appear standard (in addition, the Mk84 component has blue stripes).
Anyone know what the "LGT" designation along the top indicates?
Just fitting anything that wasn't gravity bomb/cruise-missile/attack-missile
shaped to the rotary launchers seems difficult. Getting them to clear the
bomb bay into the slipstream was another issue.
I know that certain planned weapons for the Bones, such as the AGM-129 ACM
and the AGM-154 JSOW would have been limited to 4 per launcher due to clearance
issues in the bay or fit with adjacent loaded weapons.
Also, the whole video is AI generated...Here's another short video about the B-1R proposal that has popped up:
A pity it was put into production by modifying B-1Bs, anyway since the B-1B flight-controls call the Lancer the "Bone" I have no doubt they'd have called the B-1R the "Boner".
Edit: One thing I noticed in this video which is a bit annoying is that it has a lot of footage of aircraft that aren't the B-1B
Oh yes, 17.5" for the SRAM, and 24.5" for the ALCM (the AGM-86 also tapers towards the top). The AGM-130 (based on the GBU-15, itself a re-finned Mk84) is 18". It's the tailfins that conflict, I believe. A quick check of Wiki shows a 59" span. I don't believe they were foldable against the body.I mean, the ALCM and SRAM are about 20" deep on the launch lugs.
So as long as the AGM130 is not more than that, it'll physically fit inside the bay.
59" span means a square box a little less than 43" on a side, but the mounting lugs are well inside that box. Probably far enough inside that the bottom of the rocket booster is only about 30" from the lugs.Oh yes, 17.5" for the SRAM, and 24.5" for the ALCM (the AGM-86 also tapers towards the top). The AGM-130 (based on the GBU-15, itself a re-finned Mk84) is 18". It's the tailfins that conflict, I believe. A quick check of Wiki shows a 59" span. I don't believe they were foldable against the body.
A Quail? Not the ADM-20 decoy, right? Those went out with the old "Chrome Dome" BUFFs!And yes, those tail fins are in the way for trying to fit the full 8x per rotary launcher. I suspect that you could fit 4x on there if you can program the rotary controls to drop 1, 5, 3, 7 in order. Might be able to stick something else inside that bay if it's short enough to completely clear the AGM-130 tail fins. Maybe a Quail, if the lugs are well aft on those?
A Quail? Not the ADM-20 decoy, right? Those went out with the old "Chrome Dome" BUFFs!
SM-6. You can sink ships with those if you want fast rather than a loadout of LRASMs.Something *fast*, but could also be carried internally? That would have made
the folks that wanted to sink ships happy, too.
That SM-style missile would be hard to fit in the internal bays.SM-6. You can sink ships with those if you want fast rather than a loadout of LRASMs.
The "I can dream" version of the B-1 for me would have AESA radars in the nose and tail radomes with side lobes for 360 degree coverage, plus 24 SM-6s. It wouldn't have the manpower to act as an AWACS, but a flight could dominate an airspace. Swap out some (or all) of the SM-6s for SM-3s and you could do ABM as well. That would really help out with defending a Carrier Task Force in the Western Pacific or North Atlantic.
Too bad ASALM never went into production. That would have been a great match for the B-1, for air to air, air to ground, or anti-ship.
Yes, the ADM-20 decoy. Still remembering Flight of the Old Dog using several of them.A Quail? Not the ADM-20 decoy, right? Those went out with the old "Chrome Dome" BUFFs!
I don't think you're fitting anything else on that CRL if you are 4-loading it.
ASALM is what comes to mind. Even without a warhead, those would hit a ship at twice the speed of a 16"/50 HC shell and probably 1.5x the weight; that's ~6x the kinetic energy. Or twice the speed of an AP shell and the same weight for 4x the KE. I don't think any modern ship would survive one of those.Steering back towards the Bone-R concept, it seems we're always on the lookout for something
other than Mk80-class weapons on the Bones. When the first 500lb LJDAMs were loaded, they could only
put 5 on the 10-round version of the Conventional Weapons Module (for a max of 15), and I was thinking
"that seems a light loadout for such a large aircraft". What weapons could have been used in a
scenario like that envisioned for the 'Regional'? Most speculation centers around lots of AIM-120 AMRAAMs,
but why only air-to-air? Something *fast*, but could also be carried internally? That would have made
the folks that wanted to sink ships happy, too.
Anyone know what the "LGT" designation along the top indicates?
Yeah, they loaded up that Old Dog pretty good! My Grandfather flew D- and F-model BUFFs in 'the good old days',Yes, the ADM-20 decoy. Still remembering Flight of the Old Dog using several of them.
The trick is that you need something that is at least ~2ft shorter than the AGM-130 and has the hanging lugs closer to the rear of the weapon than the front. Otherwise you'd need a weapon that is only about 10ft long overall, which does give us 1000lb bombs.
One of the great things about the ASALM concept was that it would fit the same 'footprint' as the SRAM it was replacing.ASALM is what comes to mind. Even without a warhead, those would hit a ship at twice the speed of a 16"/50 HC shell and probably 1.5x the weight; that's ~6x the kinetic energy. Or twice the speed of an AP shell and the same weight for 4x the KE. I don't think any modern ship would survive one of those.
And, they normally come with a 200kt firecracker.
Ah, so. Same as the more common "INERT" or "DO NOT FLY" markings.Load Crew Trainer. Basically a dummy with enough fidelity to match the loading process for live ordnance but not intended for flight
Here's a CBU-103 with similar markings.
Meant to address this on my earlier response. We talk so much about weapons, we don't cover sensors much.The "I can dream" version of the B-1 for me would have AESA radars in the nose and tail radomes with side lobes for 360 degree coverage, plus 24 SM-6s. It wouldn't have the manpower to act as an AWACS, but a flight could dominate an airspace.
The window of opportunity to hit ballistics is pretty narrow.Swap out some (or all) of the SM-6s for SM-3s and you could do ABM as well. That would really help out with defending a Carrier Task Force in the Western Pacific or North Atlantic.
Too bad ASALM never went into production. That would have been a great match for the B-1, for air to air, air to ground, or anti-ship.
How hard would it be? The air launched version is smaller and lighter than SRAM. If you're worried about wingspan, I'm pretty sure I've seen illustration of B-1s carrying 24 Phoenix missiles in a potential GIUK gap missileer role.That SM-style missile would be hard to fit in the internal bays.
You can sink *small* ships with an SM-6 type. Not much room for a warhead on those. (unless *special*)
The actual dream scenario would be the B-1 remains cancelled and in it's place you would get more B-2s sooner (by two years if you skip the "can you make it a low level bomber that we'll never use low level" two year delay), along with significant buys of ACM, multi-role ASALMs, and SRAM II and ALCM-A for tactical use. At which point this conversation about a B-1R would be moot.The ASALM was really a missed opportunity. Nearly twice as fast as the old SRAMs, with nearly 3 times the range?
And had an anti-AWACS capability? Hell yeah.
The ALCM-A design would have fit 24. Range would be 40% of the B model, but for tactical roles that would be fine, and modern engines could perhaps increase that to 1000nm rather than 600.And cruise missiles on the Bone means using the extended forward/mid bay.
ASALM flew in the 70s. You'd have the entire Reagan presidency to build up an inventory, with the potential for even more for navy VLS cells (they fit), and if you have air-force and navy versions why not an army one? Once it's in production like that it would probably still be in production.You could put a conventional (or kinetic) warhead on it, but we are talking about a *strategic* weapon in a
tactical scenario. Who knows how many of those we would have gotten built in the post-Cold War environment?
Yeah, you'd really need one of something like Northrop's 40 hour patrol designs from the 60s to do that. Maybe it's something you'd say to talk Congress into putting the radars on the B-1, but never actually do.The window of opportunity to hit ballistics is pretty narrow.