Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Interesting point, MadRat. However maybe the F135/6 would be too big for the current airframe and would require a considerable redesign. Maybe an existing GE132 or a further developed PW 232 would be far cheaper an option and still fit into the current airframe?

F-16.net Sponsor

The B-1B is using the F101, an engine several inches larger than the F100 or F110. Moving to a smaller engine diameter probably means a new engine pod, just like moving to F135/F136. I think you're better off with the engine that has the most dry thrust considering the role of the B-1B. Flying it faster and harder will only deteriorate the fleet sooner. Quite frankly, at this point anything but new builds is a waste of time and energy. We hardly have any airframes in flying condition left to upgrade.

discofishing wrote:

I think the original B-1 design was optimized for Mach 2+ performance. It might have use for two pairs of F119s. Imagine a Special Forces team that's cut-off and surrounded, needing CAS. This thing would be able to get warheads on foreheads faster than any other strike platform if it could supercruise. It would save lives.

Makes me wish we had gone ahead and produced the 240 B-1As planned originally. The B-1A was indeed capable of Mach 2+ speeds, I don't know if it could technically supercruise however. With modern engines it might be able to. When the program was resurrected as the B-1B the top speed was reduced to save some costs and allow further stealth features to be incorporated.

I believe that B-1R proposal awhile back involved some discussion of carrying air-to-air weapons. Perhaps two AIM-120s would be useful for self defense but I don't think it would be wise to risk a B-1 on an interception or CAP mission even if it was carrying true long range missiles.

Lasers and directed energy weapons certainly have potential and the USAF needs to continue investing in their development. The concern I have with fitting such systems to a B-1B however is that such a 25+ year old variable-sweep wing bomber already requires plenty of maintainable and work.

geogen wrote:

Interesting point, MadRat. However maybe the F135/6 would be too big for the current airframe and would require a considerable redesign. Maybe an existing GE132 or a further developed PW 232 would be far cheaper an option and still fit into the current airframe?

Yes the F135/6 series are likely too big.

I doubt you'll ever see the PW232 or GE132 in US service. We don't have the tooling or logistics to support the engines. That all adds $$ to the program in a huge way.

The F119 is closest in size to the F101, and would offer the high specific thrust and low thrust lapse for the desired supercruise performance. (unlike the other engines mentioned)

The F119 is in service, the USAF has all tooling/logistics, would increase F119 production to keep 'per-engine' and parts cost lower, etc. The key in any 're-engine' program is commonality. Like the F-14/F-16's F110, or the B-52 and KC-135 using TF33s, F-15/F-16's F100, B-2/U-2S using F118s.

Right now the B-1B is the only aircraft using the F101. (not like the B-52 using a TF33 which benefits from the economy of the civil JT3D program) The USAF is the only entity keeping that engine flying, and with the limited number of airframes/engines it's getting more and more expensive. A little over 400 engines were built 20 years ago, and 66 Bones still fly. Since this is a 'MIL only" engine, GE doesn't make a whole lot of money off the F101. (and I don't think new F101s have been produced for years!) This is why some in the USAF/DoD have proposed the F119 as a suitable, "supportable", and more affordable replacement.

IF (and that is a 'big' if) the B-1R was produced 'new' then you could see the use of the F119 or F135, but would most likely stick to an 'existing DoD engine' to keep down development costs. IE - if the F136 doesn't survive in the F-35 program, don't look for 4 of them under the B-1R IF it ever happened.

TEG

If speed is the primary goal, and not range, then a new build might be better off built with that goal in mind. I'm not so sure you wouldn't be just as well resurrecting in that case the B-70 program with a supercruise flight profile. The interesting thing is that four F119's would be pretty well equivalent to the six engines that the prototype had. Or I could get silly and suggest a rebirth of the B-58 with four VTOL-capable F135 engines to be the first VTOL supersonic bomber in the world.

I like the B-1 in both of its original versions. Unfortunately the bombers that get the most workout are the B-52's. The B-U-F-F has a good, simple, and solid long range bomb truck design that is still relevant today. If we are going to rebirth any bomber program I suggest we start with an 'EB-52 Megafortress' (minus the star wars stuff) program first, and then we worry about the B-1 or whatever else one would want. Replace the beast of burden and then worry about sports cars.

In the 'current' B-1B fleet, $$$ are the goal. The F101 is VERY expensive and sometimes difficult to maintain due to it's rather limited use and the USAF has 'investigated and/or studied' on how to remedy the situation with resources at hand.

Any other gains/savings of an F119 're-engine' (performance, or logistical) would be secondary in nature and further enhance the concept of replacing the F101.

The 'new-build' B-1 proposals are just that; an idea on paper. It is no more real than the "Future Dogfights" episode it which it was digitally brought to life.

TEG

Limited use, limited desert enviroment capability, the engine is just so old with no real upgrade except for a DEC and new style blades. There are no planes on upgrading to different engines and even the ones we got, there is no money for the right upgrades to keep the running right and helping them last longer, like S.L.E.P. (Service Life Extention Program). And these do not do well in sandy conditions out in the desert. In the 6 months I was out in Qatar and they were doing construction work behind us, the dust just caked up in the inlets and eventually within a few weeks and even a few days time, the HPT rotor blades were looking like coral reefs and trending high. Time on wing in the desert was not good for us. We went through 68 engine changes in 6 months. 40 of them due to the trend problems and other to stalls and just all out bad depot level maintenance (on the civi side, damn Tinker guys). These motors stall alot also, due to exhaust nozzle control issues and since the software upgrade for the DEC, they stall even more now. Engineers still haven't fixed all the bugs in them and don't seem to know how. at least that the perspective from the mil side.

As far as which bomber gets the most workout right now, it's the B-1. It's the most highly called on bomber right now. Sure the B-52 has a bigger payload, but the BONE can deliver its payload with better percision (thanx to the Sniper pod upgrade), can get to the faster when needed for CAS, and can intimidate enemies by burning a little extra fuel and doing a Show Of Force. That's why the BONE's presence is there year round and my even become a remote assignment, like 16's in Korea.

As we speak, we have Boeing doing DAS upgrades, a test Sqd. DET out here doing different mods that could be happening to the rest of the jets soon as soon as they work the bugs out, and there has been rumor of them leaving soon to get the new glass cockpit and Sniper pod intergration into the weapons system. Even rumors of Dyess being the base of choice to recieve the first B-1R if ever made. We even had some big wigs here one day checking the base out which was suppose to be related to that project, but it could have also been your normal dog and pony show. Politics, lol.

Sadly, no money is heading toward better engines. Oh well, as long as I have a head on my shoulders, I can at least imagine this beast having -119 in my own little world. lol Whistle

Mush

Money seems to be the Bone's biggest problem.I remember some time ago the mission capable rates before OAF were in the dumps because Big Blue didnt want to spend the coin on proper logistics support.

The more things change, eh?

Why is the Bone always on the chopping block if its the one getting the call?

The same reason Vipers are being replaced by Reapers. They're cheaper to buy, operate, and maintain. The B-1 is becoming more and more expensive to operate and maintain as it ages. (Much like the Block 25 Vipers were) Something the B-52s have seemed to avoid?

TEG

Exactly. The H model BUFFs might be 20 years older, but they aren't as complex as the BONE. Therefore, there's less on them that breaks as frequently. BONEs are great planes, and have been doing a great job in the AOR, but they do break quite a bit...Probably no coincidence, that they're the only airframe at their deployment base that currently has a heavy MX facility. All of the other planes there simply have enroute-type MX.

Quote:

The concern I have with fitting such systems to a B-1B however is that such a 25+ year old variable-sweep wing bomber already requires plenty of maintainable and work.

I doubt the 747 they put the ABL in was a new build airframe (I could be wrong). But some 747s in use are probably much older than B-1Bs.

discofishing wrote:

I think the original B-1 design was optimized for Mach 2+ performance. It might have use for two pairs of F119s. Imagine a Special Forces team that's cut-off and surrounded, needing CAS. This thing would be able to get warheads on foreheads faster than any other strike platform if it could supercruise. It would save lives.

The B-1A was designed to be able to sustain M2.2 (a capability it demonstrated). In the B-1B, however, the variable inlet ramps are no longer there, so the engines would choke at those speeds. Also the wing internal structure has been lightened, as there is no longer a need to be strong enough to handle those higher Mach loads. So while F119s might offer some advantages to the BONE, it wouldn't go much faster

Just ran across this article about the 337th testing a MER on the rotary launcher on the Bone. I'm glad to see they are willing to spend some money on stuff like this for the Bone, but I wonder why they haven't funded DAS or engine upgrades. I was at Dyess for 4 years as an Ammo guy, and the payloads are ridiculous, but if they jets stay broken, all that payload does you no good. I do think that this is a good upgrade though as far as saving the load toads a ton of time. You can't carry GBU-38s on the CRLs, so you would have to download the CRL's out of the jet and install the 10 carry CBMs to tote the -38s or WCMDs around. This at least would make all the J series weapons go on 1 launcher, and not have to deal with swap outs to upload GBU-38s. Don't know if WCMD will fit on these MERs or not, though.

B1-R. Anything with 40+ Amraam's and supercruise is cool in my book.

Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

The BONE (B-1)