Why did the Air Force take the B-1 Lancer, envisioned as a Mach

because range and speed and payload are all mutually exclusive

>>31492907
Because the B1A was killed by Carter. When the Regan admin brought it back in the 80's as the B1B, the viability of high-speed high-altitude attack profiles had been significantly degraded by the threat of SAMs. The B1B was reworked as a bomber focused on low-level penetration.

>>31493080
To Carter's credit, he only cancelled the B1A after knowing that the B2 was in development.

>>31492907
Changing the intakes allowed a dramatic reduction in RCS, to the point that people used to call it a semi stealth plane.

>>31492958
>high-speed high-altitude attack profiles

m8 it wasn't designed in the fucking 1950s, read a book

>>31492907
Not worth it, SAMs and any fighter with look-down radar can kill you at Mach 2 just as easily as they can at Mach 1.25

>>31493080

>the viability of high-speed high-altitude attack profiles had been significantly degraded by the threat of SAMs.

Is this why the F-111 was retired?

>>31493120
Also because it was a huge piece of shit, yes.

>>31493080
Did Carter do ANYTHING right? What a shitty President.

>>31493114

>Not worth it, SAMs and any fighter with look-down radar can kill you at Mach 2 just as easily as they can at Mach 1.25

But the F-15E is still allowed to go above mach 2.0. What's the difference?

>>31493124

>Did Carter do ANYTHING right?

He cancelled a project that was going to be obsolete on delivery in favor of the much more promising stealth bomber. That was the right decision. Reagan tried to undo it because he was obsessed with looking tough rather than actual practicality.

>>31493124
Best ex-President ever.

>>31493141
An F-15E can actually defend itself.

>>31493108
I've heard this too, from my grandfather who worked at Rockwell Int., during the start of the B1b program. Man, miss that guy.

>>31493175
Just wait fir the B1-BR. It's gonna get amraams. Or whichever AA missle they decide to throw in it

>>31493237
>>31493237
The B1-R is a concept only. There are no plans for its adoption.

>>31493141
>I'm too retarded to tell the difference between a fighter and a strategic bomber fuck my asss

>>31493301

Why does a fighter need to be faster than a bomber?

>>31493443
>Why does a fighter need to be faster than a bomber?

To remove ka-bomber.

>>31493443
>Why does a fighter need to be faster than a bomber?
>What is an interceptor?

PSA: Ironic shitposting is still shitposting

>>31493899

But interceptors have been considered obsolete for some time now. In what situation does a fighter need to go significantly above mach 1.25?

>>31493920
I would assume any air superiority craft would benefit from being able to go faster than mach 2, whether its to engage other similar craft, or to a role such as an interceptor. Also it can go faster due to the size and shape of the craft, making a bigger craft go mach 2 means more power, which means more stress on the airframe, also more fuel consumption, etc., I think you get the point I'm driving at.

>>31493920
Purpose-built interceptors, yes, but the task of interception is still necessary. Speed is always a good thing in a fighter, whether to close distance with an enemy or increase to get away. As long as bombers exist, or any craft that can carry a lot of hurt to a lot of people, it will be necessary to have measures to stop them before they deliver that hurt.

>>31493965

>I would assume any air superiority craft would benefit from being able to go faster than mach 2

Is there even a single recorded instance of a fighter jet exceeding mach 2.0 in an actual combat situation?

>>31493992

>Speed is always a good thing in a fighter, whether to close distance with an enemy or increase to get away.

Going super fast completely destroys your fuel efficiency. You won't have enough fuel to actually engage the target when you get there.

>>31493124
The best thing he did was work out COG and clean up the mess that was SIOP at the time.

>>31493124
Not much, that's for damn sure.