B-1 Bomber Appreciation

all the B-52s should have been retired from bomber duty and replaced with B-1Bs.

the B-1 is more capable and cheaper to operate than the b52.

File: Lancer.jpg (957KB, 2100x1397px) Image search: [Google]

957KB, 2100x1397px

>>34836894
B-1R UPGRADE WHEN??

File: B1_04.jpg (316KB, 1920x1018px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 1920x1018px

Hell yeah, glad I'm not the only B1 lover that's been excited by her recent deployment.

>>34836937
Likely never. Drones and cruise missiles are gonna replace bombers.

File: B-1B.jpg (1MB, 3000x1993px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x1993px

So sex, such airfoils.

>>34836947
>>34836947I remember reading that in a popular science magazine about 25 years ago. Drones would replace fighters, bombers, everything. Trillions of dollars later we have F22 and F35.

Cruise missiles and ICBMs were what supposedly made this glorious bomber obsolete. Yet here it is. Still flying.

I think people have a hard time with the idea of doing mass amounts of killing remotely. It helps normies and politicians sleep knowing there is a human up there making one last set of checks and decisions before pushing the button.

>>34836947

No they aren't, otherwise the AF wouldn't even be bothering with the B-21. More to the point, if such a thing were to happen it'd be phased in by replacing all cargo, tanker, and radio/reconnaissance planes with drones. This hasn't happened, and probably won't because if we ever get into a real fight (as in a fight against a country with an industrial base) then simply taking out the GPS system and jamming radio channels makes drones effectively non-op.

And the AF themselves figured out that missiles can't replace everything back in Vietnam.

>>34837020

It's not so much mass killing as it is trusting millions of dollars of custom built equipment and bombs with a vehicle without a pilot onboard.

>>34837077
>simply taking out the GPS system and jamming radio channels
Not arguing with your point, but IRS/INS exists for a reason.

File: SABR-5thGenIcon2.jpg (265KB, 1776x1272px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1776x1272px

>>34836894
One of my favorite things about it nowadays is that it's getting an AESA for some reason. It's such a weird addition but I love it.

>>34836937
The lightning in the background makes that so much better.

>>34836911
>all the B-52s should have been retired from bomber duty and replaced with B-1Bs.
I disagree, all the current bombers have pretty well defined roles.
Now, the B-52 should have been re-engined with 4 GE-90s or something cause fuck those 8 engines are old. The airframe is solid though.

I took a bunch of pics of the static display B-1 and B-1 that flew over at Oshkosh a couple weeks ago, but I'm too lazy and tired to pull them off my camera and convert them to jpeg right now.

Sorry guys.

>>34837174
Why did you mention this just to dissapoint us

>>34837161
>Now, the B-52 should have been re-engined with 4 GE-90s or something cause fuck those 8 engines are old. The airframe is solid though.

Bypass fans will reduce the aicraft's top speed by increasing its frontal area.

>>34836911
B-1B's also have a larger payload than B-52's.
I'm not sure if the B-1B is cheaper though, I mean didn't they get RAM coating?

>>34837813
Adjusting for inflation the B-1 is something like twice as expensive. That's just unit cost though.

>>34836911
External stores keep the B-52 viable, despite the increase in payload the B-1B has.
There's also the fact that the B-52 airframe has a ton of space for new systems.
It's the same reason Russia ditched the Tu-16 Badger and retains the Tu-65 Bear, alongside the Tu-160 Blackjack (very similar to a B-1) and the Tu-22M (supersonic cruise missile/anti-ship missile thrower)

>>34836894

the B-1B is the B-17 of our time.

a classic pedigree bomber, refined looks, odd details and expensive comforts, perhaps not as proven, reliable or versatile as it's stern workhorse equivalents or the even more top of the line, strategical elements, but still a more than capable, if misunderstood machine that's been waiting to be at the centerfold of history since it's inception.

i want to see bombers be glamorous again.

>>34836947

what do you think launches cruise missiles, anon

hint: it's not just ships

>>34836894
Those birds are pure sexy. I recall seeing and reading about them while in high school around 1982(?). Always thought it looked like it came from the future. The engines and ECM aspects were the focus of my interests. 30 years later these beauts still look great.

>>34837174
That's like a big f-u. :-)
The only way to redeem yourself is for me to bookmark this thread, and you to get a good rest and then get those pix up here asap, anon.

>>34836894
What makes me even more happy is that the chairforce is pulling B1b's and B52's from the AMARG boneyard, refurbishing them and putting back in active service.

I just wonder where they're find the money to do this?

>>34836894
A good friend of mine lives on a farm half a mile from Dyess AFB. We always got some good views of C-130's and B-1's, I'm headed up there in a month for some dove hunting, I fully intend to sit out on the porch and watch test flights. Best day so far was driving back to the house from his stock pond after a great duck hunt, and an early morning B-1 takeoff cruised about 2,000 feet above us and then seemed to almost hit afterburners to gain altitude.

>>34837116
It kinda makes sense. Radar is a big part of the overall system with terrain following and all that (though SNIPER makes it somewhat less relevant I guess), and even in the beginning the Bone was on the bleeding edge of ESA radar tech with the APQ-140 reflecting array antenna on the B-1A.

File: 1500312783066.gif (899KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

899KB, 600x600px

>>34836911
B-1 is cheaper? Really?
I thought that was the reason they weren't adopted.

We had two of these stop at my base, one of them ended up crashing and was parked at the end of the runway for two weeks as it got fixed.

Hearing them take off was magical, to say the least. I'm trying to commission as a pilot, my dream is to get put in one of these sexy beasts.

>>34837892
>a classic pedigree bomber, refined looks, odd details and expensive comforts, perhaps not as proven, reliable or versatile as it's stern workhorse equivalents

B-1B has been the workhorse of USAF in Afghanistan. Who would have thought when B-1 program was started, that it would be used on missions where it might drop a single 250lb precision guided bomb.

File: lewd.jpg (111KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1024x768px

Would you a B-1?

>>34839107

Lewd

>>34838444
This isn't true, we actually sent two birds to the boneyard a couple years ago from our base, plus the test planes at Edwards go to the boneyard when they're finished with them.

>>34839107
I go inside her 5 days a week

>>34837086
Except sufficiently developed autopilot is always better than humans. The latest self driving car prototypes and the software package in modern planes proves that.

Humans are arrogant for thinking that they can perform better than something made from the ground up to do their job.

>>34840227
Do you jerk it in there? Do air crew actually do this?

>>34838444
I haven't seen anything like that leaving, I live right here in sunny old Tucson.

>>34840457

It's not better when the enemy disables it's ability to navigate and communicate. That's the problem I am getting at, a trillion dollar self driving plane that also makes cupcakes is worthless if it cannot figure out where it is and flies into a mountain.

Do you see the problem here? It's not ability, but what happens when things go wrong (as is often the case in life and warfare in general). A manned pilot prevents stray aircraft from occurring ever.

>>34840533
This. You can disable or confuse electronics much easier than you can living breathing people.

>>34839107
huh.. anyone ever build an RC ducted fan model ob the B1?

>>34836947
>Likely never. Drones and cruise missiles are gonna replace bombers.
dont you ever get tired of being wrong?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Strike_Bomber_program

>>34837161
>>34837783
the TF39s from the C-5 galaxy have twice the thrust as a B-52 engine. the Galaxy's cruise speed is only about 10 mph slower than a b52

putting the tf39 on the b52 would result in a gain of cruise speed, range, and ease of logistics.

>>34836894
Hey, i've been curious about this for years & have never heard an explanation for it. By what process was it designated "B1"? I thought they numbered sequentially & would have thought it would get a number after B-52.

>>34840553
>You can disable or confuse electronics much easier than you can living breathing people.
anyone that works with both people and machinery would disagree with you. machines dont make as many mistakes as people. automation is your friend.

>>34840586

For the same reason the Phantom was F-4, they rebooted the numbers.

File: c5m_super_galaxy.jpg (502KB, 2100x1500px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 2100x1500px

>>34840584

>C-5
>TF39

In january the last C-5 to be upgraded left Westover AFB to become a C-5M Super Galaxy.
The TF39 has been replaced by the CF6-80C2 on the C-5s.

>>34837077
B-21 is likely to be optionally manned or have the ability to be switched over from what I understand.

>>34840754
even better. slap those on the B-52.

File: Pratt_&_Whitney_Canada_PW800.jpg (31KB, 375x278px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 375x278px

>>34840838

They're allegedly leaning towards going with an 8 engine option instead of 4.

>The Air Force’s current thinking is to replace the TF33 with eight modern regional jet engines that hew closely to the size, weight and thrust of the original, thus minimizing any structural redesign to the B-52’s wings, Noetzel said.

So they might end up with modern regionel jet engines like the Rolls-Royce BR700 or the Pratt & Whitney PW 800.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/02/06/us-air-force-glides-toward-b-52-engine-replacement-plan/

>>34840963
That would be nice. Anything to replace those ancient engines they have now.

I wish they would develop a new workhorse heavy bomber/cruise missle platform though. To specifically replace the B-52. I had friends who were maintenance on that bird who said they could spend days following wiring in there only to find it lead to nowhere.

>>34840963
I'd like to see some estimates comparing the range, payload, climb, takeoff run, etc statistics between current B-52 configurations, a configuration with 4 modern high bypass turbofans, and a configuration with 8 modern regional jet turbofans.

>>34840963
The B52s are so old. That they probably need major frame work on their wings anyways. So you can change the wing frame for a 4 hi bypass set up next time the plane is torn down for major overhauls.

oh man i got to do some contract work at dyess deveral years ago (basically powerwashed their parking spots next to the runway.) got to see em somewhat close up and watch a few take off and land. was beautiful.

>>34836894
Loudest sound in the fucking world is one of these bastards going by at full burner. Saw it at an airshow once, this vid doesn't do it justice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGooeQm6Xgo

File: because fuck you that's why.jpg (61KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1024x768px

>>34837116
AMRAAM integration when?

>TFW Macross-style missile spam could be real in your lifetime.

File: 1501087552063.png (983KB, 1464x1236px) Image search: [Google]

983KB, 1464x1236px

>>34841262

>>34836937
Is the guy on the right trying to dodge bullets or something?

>>34838494
>SNIPER
You mean the targeting pod? Radar is super useful because it can identify potential targets over a wider area and longer distance, and then hand off to the TGP.

>>34841286
Anything with a sonic boom involved is cheating.

>>34836937

>B-1R
>B-oneR


i too would like to see a big american boner shower the enemy with endless loads

File: 4228418-5867255133-23628-127901.jpg (165KB, 655x425px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 655x425px

>>34836937
>>34841297
IT WAS ME BARRY! I STOPPED THE B-1R PROCUREMENT

>>34840504
Crew chiefs have found used condoms during the post flight shit. Not sure how since there's room in there to fuck unless it was in the equipment bay behind the oso and dso

>>34841277
Where the hell are the horizontal stabilizers on those models?

>>34841654
I've heard that the B1 is a notorious maintenance hog. Is it hard for pilots to get flight hours in that bird?

>>34841683
It is a maintenance hog, but we usually manage to put a plane up when we need it. Deployed we never missed a sortie due to maintenance

>>34841703
Wish I took an actual maintenance job instead of ammo.

>>34841703

wasn't the maintenance shitty in the past because they cut funds on it for the longest time before they realized it was actually useful?

File: corp_b52_conect_400x225[1].jpg (30KB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 400x225px

>>34841703
can't be worse than an airframe old enough to be the colonel's father.

>>34841742
Actually the B-1 and B-2 had a little over a 50% availability rate for 2016. The B-52 had a little under 75%.

>>34841681
Removed to save weight for more missiles obviously.

>>34840676
Ah, ok.. makes sense. Tnx.

>>34841554
kek. might get to see that if Kim & Donny keep at it.

>>34841742
Speaking of age, isn't there a grand-son of one of the first SAC pilots flying these? Thought I read mention that there was 3 generations in one family that flew the B-52.

>>34841738
A lot of parts and component repair is done by contractors, so there's problems that end in use being short on parts sometimes. That's the biggest chink in the chain for us is parts availability.

>>34841742
The plane is old but its also not pressurized at 4000psi, flying supersonic, and pulling high G maneuvers. But keep shit box one away from us, that turd drops hardware on the runway after it takes off

File: 1352408759364.jpg (266KB, 1968x1113px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 1968x1113px

>>34840206
>>34840526
Really because this B-1bB was send to the boneyard back in 02 and here it is back flying 2017
http://www.airliners.net/search?registrationActual=84-0058&display=detail

and this B52H apparently as well.

http://www.airliners.net/search?registrationActual=61-0007&display=detail

So i am curious to know if this info is correct and if so why the chairforce is doing this?

>>34840963
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHdIRwKtnig

>>34841681
It's using a butterfly tail

>>34841613
Underrated
Now back to
>>>/co/

File: for k.png (19KB, 484x297px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 484x297px

>>34837738
>>34838279
Look what I'm up to.

This will take a while.

>>34837161
>the 52s should be re engined
This. With modern sensor upgrades and datalink becoming more advanced, the 52s would make excellent long range bomb trucks filled with long range munitions.
In principle, this B52 would be the same doctrinally as the Russian Tu-95 Bear, only actually good at its job and not rusting away in Siberia.

A great engine for the 52s would be the PW2000/ F117 turbofan, the same used on the C-17 globemaster and most 767 commercial jet aircraft. Add tapered winglets and youve got yourself one long range anti shipping platform.

High School engineering teacher worked on the sims for these when he was at Rockwell. Said it was a great time. They would regularly nuke Moscow when there was nothing else to do.

>>34836894

>>34843974

gibs