North American Rockwell / Boeing B-1 Lancer

[jsport]

With regards to the B1b speed limitation I understand the following;-

The intake spill vents are oriented such that they vented across the wing lower surface. Therefore in the event of a supersonic engine unstart (surge) the aircraft would yaw, due to the asymmetric loss of thrust, and roll into the yaw due to a loss of lift as a result the excess air venting from the spill doors impinging on lower wing surface. The aircraft was judged to be unrecoverable above approx 1.2 Mach and the probability of a supersonic unstart was unacceptable to the safety case.

This information came from a very nervous FAA test pilot who had to demonstrate supersonic unstarts as part of Concorde certification. Concorde’s intake spill vents operate downward, thus hence no loss of lift meaning supersonic unstarts were completely benign(safe) during any part of its flight envelope.

The technical lead for Concorde intake design, Dr Talbot, participated in consultancy to Rockwell in the mid/late seventies, where he was told the B1a’s total flight test time at 2.0 Mach was less than ten hours due the above concerns.

This conclusion would hint that Rockwell should never have been in the jet bomber business (an explaination of why they are not now) and the B-1 and its derivatives maybe should not ever been in service. Too many compromises like the Space Shuttle. Design by bad budgets and committees.

You know Rockwell equals North American Aviation, right? Not an organisation exactly unfamiliar with jet bombers and fighters.
Indeed apart from Convair (which became General Dynamics) no one else in US had even remotely the same pre-existing experience with supersonic bombers (for example Boeing certainly didn’t).

The General Dynmaics F-111 is an example of proper design and there should have been the large FB-111 in the first place. Now LM and Boeing should compete as NG is best for BWB while a swing wing combine cycle is needed.

 

[jsport]

Regarding the top speed, the plan as I remember it was that production B-1As would retain the variable intakes, but they would be deactivated in normal operations. This would save a significant amount on maintenance, and if it was later determined that on certain missions the capability would be needed, they would be activated. I don't know if activation involved just pushing in certain circuit breakers and telling the FCS the intakes were back or whether external actions had to be taken on the flight line. The Navy followed the exact same stratagem on the F-14D. The variable ramps were there, but deactivated.

This is factually untrue in regards to the F-14D (or any F-14 for that matter). The AICS (Air Inlet Control System) was operational until the last flight of the F-14D. On museum aircraft that have not been repainted, you can see the wipe marks left on the inner vertical faces of the inlet as the AICS ramps were run to full limits during the BIT/OBC checks as the aircraft was powered up.

Thank you for the clarification and the oppurtunity to again exclaim the need for some type of F-14 analog to enter Carrier wing service as the current aircraft do not justify the expense and risk carriers entail. Carriers need a swing wing fighter bomber of some size able to infiltrate at low altitude.

 

[jsport]

" It's no longer a question of if, but when the Air Force and Congress will send the aircraft to the Boneyard. "

The same could be said of every aircraft in the inventory.

Many and including those in the higher echelons of the AF have determined that is in fact the case. Thank you for bringing it up again.

 

[GARGEAN]

Carriers need a swing wing fighter bomber of some size able to infiltrate at low altitude.

Why? Why low alt in so essential and why you so urgently need swing wing for that?

 

[jsport]

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.

As stated we don't know what the B-21's payload is only that it is smaller than the the B-2. That is an engineering triumph alright. Give us break. The most important payload is the DEW defense system in the first place, in the end.

If your SEAD is effective at range and airframe defenses are good enough, who cares if your detected. As in ships distributed assets is a lost leader and is a receipt for defeat in detail. Wide area search is for expendable Munitions/Uavs and autonomy not the "network" the new push.

As mentioned way above and correctly Hypersonic is needed not only for global response but also mobile ICBM hunting. There is nothing fanboy about it. The Brits are testing a manned craft hypersonic engine and the US has decades of engine research for manned craft.

The B-21 is manned bomber. Folks would like to know if there is an unmanned version which was discussed in the press. An unmanned option F-35 was discussed. It didn't happen either. UCAVs are not at all the absolute. Something as expensive as hyper bomber is more likely to suffer from the encumbering logistics of human occupation, because noone is going to trust a costly beast to be unmanned.

 

[jsport]

Carriers need a swing wing fighter bomber of some size able to infiltrate at low altitude.

Why? Why low alt in so essential and why you so urgently need swing wing for that?

Though even 300s but especially 400s and 500s have look down shoot down capability the best means to survive those onslaughts is low stealth infiltration affording the lowest warning time to those 00s.

 

[GARGEAN]

Okay, let's assume that low alt is somehow viable against properly prepared AD net (no). Why swing wing?

 

[sferrin]

" It's no longer a question of if, but when the Air Force and Congress will send the aircraft to the Boneyard. "

The same could be said of every aircraft in the inventory.

Many and including those in the higher echelons of the AF have determined that is in fact the case. Thank you for bringing it up again.

I brought it up again because you seem to have missed it the first time.

 

[jsport]

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.

 

[kaiserd]

What a load of ill informed inconsistent claptrap.
For example the F-111, while it eventually matured into a good low-level theatre bomber, was very famously initially a near disaster as a project and (as is extremely well know) had major design and technical problems. So hardly the ideal aircraft it is being portrayed as above.
And didn’t the FB-111 (both the produces version and the unproduced larger version) suffer from lack of payload/ range for the strategic mission, exactly what you are accusing the B-21 of despite the lack of any evidence in this regard.
From his comments Jsport also doesn’t appear to understand (1) why swing-wings were actually adopted for some specific designs and the actual advantages they brought and (2) why they fell from favour.
Nor does that contributor appear to understand modern air defences despite unshakable convictions that hypersonic performance is a critical parameter for survival against such systems.
I could go on.
Merry Christmas Jsport.

 

[jsport]

What a load of ill informed inconsistent claptrap.
For example the F-111, while it eventually matured into a good low-level theatre bomber, was very famously initially a near disaster as a project and (as is extremely well know) had major design and technical problems. So hardly the ideal aircraft it is being portrayed as above.

sounds like some emotion goin on here.
Battling the bolderdashery. The F-111 had some early problems on few missions in Vietnam (way before the B-1 was even conceived) but served till recently in Aussy land.

[/QUOTE]And didn’t the FB-111 (both the produces version and the unproduced larger version) suffer from lack of payload/ range for the strategic mission, exactly what you are accusing the B-21 of despite the lack of any evidence in this regard.[/QUOTE]

no idea the weight B-21 carries and never said I did. Internal space from a smaller plane than the B-1 appears quite obvious.

[/QUOTE]From his comments Jsport also doesn’t appear to understand (1) why swing-wings were actually adopted for some specific designs and the actual advantages they brought and (2) why they fell from favour.[/QUOTE]

First of all, to many folks swing-wing never fell out of favor. Second modern mechanics and material science render any argument against them void. You have no idea what I do and don't know. It seems your emotional bent against me has you exclaiming what you think I know about swing-wing. You are speaking way out of turn.
F-111 was never designed as strategic craft. The FB-111H was never built. F-111s had no problem w/ Mach 2.5 and the contractor could have been trusted to reach that speed w/ the larger craft. Did the B-1A ever even reach that design speed, let alone the B-1B which was built not to.

[/QUOTE]Nor does that contributor appear to understand modern air defences despite unshakable convictions that hypersonic performance is a critical parameter for survival against such systems.[/QUOTE]

You have again no idea what I know about Air Defense. Having had a TS clearance etc.... Again some emotion bent. BTW I never mentioned air defense against Hypersonics in the first place.

[/QUOTE]I could go on.[/QUOTE]

Please do, as your digging yourself even deeper.

Merry Christmas Jsport.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]

Merry Christmas kaiserd

 

[GARGEAN]

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?

 

[MihoshiK]

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?

 

[jsport]

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.

 

[jsport]

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.

 

[GARGEAN]

Lower weight. With swing wing... On stealthy platform...

Mkay I'm out.

 

[jsport]

Lower weight. With swing wing... On stealthy platform...

Mkay I'm out.

Navalized F-22 concept has been well known for sometime

 

[sferrin]

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.

 

[kaiserd]

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.

 

[trose213]

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.

 

[rooster]

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.

 

[jsport]

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

 

[jsport]

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.

Why did the F-22N Sea Raptor never enter development? Would it have been a better option than the F-35?

Answer (1 of 8): Adapting the F-22 for us on aircraft carriers was simply too steep a mountain to climb. The end result of such and adaptation would have been a much different aircraft, as well as a much more expensive aircraft. The F-22 as is, is not structurally sound for the trauma of making ...

www.quora.com

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.

 

[kaiserd]

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.

 

[jsport]

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.

 

[GARGEAN]

Stop citating me reeee!

 

[jsport]

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/rumsfeld-declassified-notes-stealthy-f-111-etc.30005/

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.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/navy-ax-and-a-fx-projects.2150/page-5#post-105039

 

[trose213]

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.

 

[thefrecklepuny]

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.

 

[sferrin]

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.

 

[thefrecklepuny]

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.

 

[kaiserd]

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”.

 

[jsport]

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.

 

[kaiserd]

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?

 

[jsport]

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..

 

[kaiserd]

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.

 

[jsport]

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.

 

[MihoshiK]

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.

 

[jsport]

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.

 

[rooster]

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.