Author Topic: New USAF Bomber  (Read 3842 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

New USAF Bomber
« on: September 19, 2016, 12:04:30 PM »
http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-air-force-bomber-to-be-named-the-raider-1474300824

Guess my suggested name of "Crusader" didn't make the cut.

Re: New USAF Bomber
« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2016, 12:10:02 PM »
http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-air-force-bomber-to-be-named-the-raider-1474300824

Guess my suggested name of "Crusader" didn't make the cut.

"Rag Head on a Stick" didn't make it either. Maybe next time?  :)

Re: New USAF Bomber
« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2016, 12:10:10 PM »
http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-air-force-bomber-to-be-named-the-raider-1474300824

Guess my suggested name of "Crusader" didn't make the cut.


Is it supposed to look like the B2? What will it be used for?

Re: New USAF Bomber
« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2016, 12:19:07 PM »
That looks like a really expensive, really complex design with limited real world applications. These are going to wind up costing a billion dollars a plane. But these seem like they can only serve as a nuclear bombing or cruise missile platform but wouldn't be good for tactical bombing. For instance you would use this thing to wipe out Iran's capital city but these seem woefully unprepared to bomb random pockets of insurgents.

Anyone have more info? This is my uninformed opinion from reading the article and looking at the design. I'm concerned with the direction of the airforce. First with the failing F-35 project and now with these billion dollar a plane nuclear bombers. Meanwhile they're getting rid of the unbelievable efficient and cheap A-10 program with nothing to replace it.

Re: New USAF Bomber
« Reply #4 on: September 19, 2016, 12:27:45 PM »
That looks like a really expensive, really complex design with limited real world applications. These are going to wind up costing a billion dollars a plane. But these seem like they can only serve as a nuclear bombing but wouldn't be good for tactical bombing. For instance you would use this thing to wipe out Iran's capital city but these seem woefully unprepared to bomb random pockets of insurgents.

Anyone have more info? This is my uninformed opinion from reading the article and looking at the design. I'm concerned with the direction of the airforce. First with the failing F-35 project and now with these billion dollar a plane nuclear bombers.


Sadly, military budgets with appalling regularity end up being poured into the pot for answers to problems that can be solved with existing means or where non existed.

Re: New USAF Bomber
« Reply #5 on: September 19, 2016, 12:34:25 PM »
That looks like a really expensive, really complex design with limited real world applications. These are going to wind up costing a billion dollars a plane. But these seem like they can only serve as a nuclear bombing but wouldn't be good for tactical bombing. For instance you would use this thing to wipe out Iran's capital city but these seem woefully unprepared to bomb random pockets of insurgents.

Anyone have more info? This is my uninformed opinion from reading the article and looking at the design. I'm concerned with the direction of the airforce. First with the failing F-35 project and now with these billion dollar a plane nuclear bombers.

Yes, from what I know the aircraft's primary mission is nuclear strike.  I've been told the RFP for then named "Long Range Strike Bomber" called for the capability to carry out strategic and tactical strike missions with conventional weapons, as well as performing intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance missions.  At one point there was even talk of making the a/c capable of flying unmanned combat missions, although I don't know that made it into the RFP.

Re: New USAF Bomber
« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2016, 12:45:48 PM »
Oh, man. I hope they bring this to our local air show next summer. My favorite event of the year. Nothing like the gorgeous Heavenly drones of a jet engine. I should be posting this in your favorite things thread.

Re: New USAF Bomber
« Reply #7 on: September 19, 2016, 12:56:40 PM »
Yes, from what I know the aircraft's primary mission is nuclear strike.  I've been told the RFP for then named "Long Range Strike Bomber" called for the capability to carry out strategic and tactical strike missions with conventional weapons, as well as performing intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance missions.  At one point there was even talk of making the a/c capable of flying unmanned combat missions, although I don't know that made it into the RFP.


There's a bit of Deja vu in this; The RAF had the TSR2 designed and prototyped in the late 50's-early 60's. Numerous demands for spec changes and the very real problem of the technology to do what it was intended  to do, not yet being invented(!), plus escalating costs, sounded its death knell. The ideas were good for the time; just behind the two man cockpit was the avionics bay that would literally have a pallet with the 'computer' that held the mission profile would be loaded in. That info these days would probably take up a usb drive of a few Gb.

There's a good FS YT video that is titled 'what if?' about the TSR2 (Tactical Strike Reconnaissance), but it couldn't because it was in many ways ahead of its time, and the tech hadn't caught up. The engines going into Concorde.

Re: New USAF Bomber
« Reply #8 on: September 19, 2016, 12:57:18 PM »
On a side note...The old B-1 is not as costly and is finding new uses!


Re: New USAF Bomber
« Reply #9 on: September 19, 2016, 01:03:48 PM »

Re: New USAF Bomber
« Reply #10 on: September 19, 2016, 01:13:44 PM »
What year did (redacted) land on (redacted)?

Re: New USAF Bomber
« Reply #11 on: September 19, 2016, 01:17:35 PM »
Trump will use this bomber to hammer the sand people with dank cluster memes.

Re: New USAF Bomber
« Reply #12 on: September 19, 2016, 02:50:26 PM »
On a side note...The old B-1 is not as costly and is finding new uses!



Back several year age I sat in on a briefing given by two B-1 pilots who'd recently returned from an expeditionary deployment. Their first slide jokingly referred to their aircraft as the "A/B-1".  They then proceeded to  detail a number of missions where their a/c, designed as a strategic bomber (B=bomber), had been flown as a tactical attack (A=attack) aircraft providing close air support to coalition/friendly ground forces in Iraq.  In the tactical strike/CAS role, the B-1 was uniquely suited due to its ability to carry a very large ordnance load with fuel enough to loiter for hours, then when called upon use precision guided munitions in support of troops in close contact with enemy forces. With tanker support, they could literally stay in the air until their weapon load was expended.  Not a mission they could undertake as effectively in a high threat, anti-air/air defense environment, but over Iraq they faced no credible threat.

Re: New USAF Bomber
« Reply #13 on: September 19, 2016, 03:07:28 PM »
over Iraq they faced no credible threat.

'Murica

fuck yeah

Re: New USAF Bomber
« Reply #14 on: September 19, 2016, 03:09:04 PM »

There's a bit of Deja vu in this; The RAF had the TSR2 designed and prototyped in the late 50's-early 60's. Numerous demands for spec changess and the very real problem of the technology to do what it was intended  to do, not yet being invented(!), plus escalating costs, sounded its death knell. The ideas were good for the time; just behind the two man cockpit was the avionics bay that would literally have a pallet with the 'computer' that held the mission profile would be loaded in. That info these days would probably take up a usb drive of a few Gb.

There's a good FS YT video that is titled 'what if?' about the TSR2 (Tactical Strike Reconnaissance), but it couldn't because it was in many ways ahead of its time, and the tech hadn't caught up. The engines going into Concorde.

Have you seen the remaining TSR.2 at Cosford?  It is a large aircraft. As displayed, the bays are open and you can see the palletized avionics both installed and as stand alone items.  Reminded me of the TV manufacturer Quasar from back in the late 60s/early 70s that advertised "works in a drawer" design for ease of maintenance.

The "what might have been" story of the TSR.2 is similar to the Canadian "Arrow" interceptor of the mid/late 50s.  Both a/c took on performance capabilities that the technology of the day was not advanced enough to deliver with a high degree of reliability.  At least in the case of the Arrow, by the time the technology caught up with requirements, the mission for which the a/c was designed was no longer viable.

Re: New USAF Bomber
« Reply #15 on: September 19, 2016, 03:13:54 PM »
Back several year age I sat in on a briefing given by two B-1 pilots who'd recently returned from an expeditionary deployment. Their first slide jokingly referred to their aircraft as the "A/B-1".  They then proceeded to  detail a number of missions where their a/c, designed as a strategic bomber (B=bomber), had been flown as a tactical attack (A=attack) aircraft providing close air support to coalition/friendly ground forces in Iraq.  In the tactical strike/CAS role, the B-1 was uniquely suited due to its ability to carry a very large ordnance load with fuel enough to loiter for hours, then when called upon use precision guided munitions in support of troops in close contact with enemy forces.
With tanker support, they could literally stay in the air until their weapon load was expended.  Not a mission they could undertake as effectively in a high threat, anti-air/air defense environment, but over Iraq they faced no credible threat.


Sorry to derail things' a well known radio control model builder (has a channel on YT) built the moulds and then the panels for a scale B1. Powered by four Jetcat miniature turbines (I think about $4000 EACH), the undercarriage alone was a work of art, extending and retracting just like the real thing (the linkages are quite complex); The wings swung in and out too, flaps deployed, the whole lot; he was even invited along to display it at a USAF dinner at B1 Station.

However; It hasn't to my knowledge ever flown, because the real thing uses about 20% of its thrust to cruise...The model would need to use 80% of the total thrust just to maintain altitude. Its power to weight ratio was just too low, which is a hell of a shame because it was beautiful.

Re: New USAF Bomber
« Reply #16 on: September 19, 2016, 03:18:44 PM »

Sorry to derail things' a well known radio control model builder (has a channel on YT) built the moulds and then the panels for a scale B1. Powered by four Jetcat miniature turbines (I think about $4000 EACH), the undercarriage alone was a work of art, extending and retracting just like the real thing (the linkages are quite complex); The wings swung in and out too, flaps deployed, the whole lot; he was even invited along to display it at a USAF dinner at B1 Station.

However; It hasn't to my knowledge ever flown, because the real thing uses about 20% of its thrust to cruise...The model would need to use 80% of the total thrust just to maintain altitude. Its power to weight ratio was just too low, which is a hell of a shame because it was beautiful.
Fluid dynamics doesn't scale.  That is why so many model aircraft aren't built true to scale.  If they were they wouldn't fly well.

Re: New USAF Bomber
« Reply #17 on: September 19, 2016, 03:20:00 PM »
Have you seen the remaining TSR.2 at Cosford?  It is a large aircraft. As displayed, the bays are open and you can see the palletized avionics both installed and as stand alone items.  Reminded me of the TV manufacturer Quasar from back in the late 60s/early 70s that advertised "works in a drawer" design for ease of maintenance.

The "what might have been" story of the TSR.2 is similar to the Canadian "Arrow" interceptor of the mid/late 50s.  Both a/c took on performance capabilities that the technology of the day was not advanced enough to deliver with a high degree of reliability.  At least in the case of the Arrow, by the time the technology caught up with requirements, the mission for which the a/c was designed was no longer viable.


I saw a TSR2 at Duxford many years ago when I was in the Air Cadets. It is a very large aircraft for two guys. It outran a Lightening in a vertical climb in testing...On one engine. The reheat didn't kick in as expected but it carried on climbing.

Re: New USAF Bomber
« Reply #18 on: September 19, 2016, 03:23:26 PM »
Fluid dynamics doesn't scale.  That is why so many model aircraft aren't built true to scale.  If they were they wouldn't fly well.

True. It's why scale gliders look more scale, you get away with more and not have the weight of the motor to lift. The Mosquito is the model I don't like to see..The props are two bladed, too small and the engines not deep enough in tone. Ever see the 1/5 scale Merlin on YT? 

Re: New USAF Bomber
« Reply #19 on: September 19, 2016, 03:37:53 PM »
Fluid dynamics doesn't scale.  That is why so many model aircraft aren't built true to scale.  If they were they wouldn't fly well.

Fluid dynamics don't scale? How so in this case? I would think air flow dynamics would be similar if not the same on scale models versus full-size and power to weight ratios would also apply for any given design.

It seems more likely to me that small RC jet engines are just not powerful enough for certain models of airplane. They don't put out enough thrust for heavier models or those with more drag.

Re: New USAF Bomber
« Reply #20 on: September 19, 2016, 03:43:54 PM »
I recall that the Hardy Kruger character made the point very well in "Flight of the Phoenix." He was a model plane designer who didn't get no respect -- until he got his latest "model" in the air and saved everybody's lives.

Re: New USAF Bomber
« Reply #21 on: September 19, 2016, 03:45:18 PM »
Fluid dynamics doesn't scale.  That is why so many model aircraft aren't built true to scale.  If they were they wouldn't fly well.

Ever heard the term "dynamic similitude"?  It explains why fluid mechanics do scale, and as a result, why scale models of aircraft can be tested in wind tunnels.

Re: New USAF Bomber
« Reply #22 on: September 19, 2016, 03:46:42 PM »
Fluid dynamics don't scale? How so in this case? I would think air flow dynamics would be similar if not the same on scale models versus full-size and power to weight ratios would also apply for any given design.

It seems more likely to me that small RC jet engines are just not powerful enough for certain models of airplane. They don't put out enough thrust for heavier models or those with more drag.
As size decreases the difference between laminar and non-laminar flow become increasingly important. With liquids surface tension starts to dominate.  An example of this is why older movies with with breaking dam effects look so fake; you can tell the drops are small.

I don't have experience with RC jet engines but I suspect that with the B1 model the wing surface is insufficient for the weight of the model.  Not sure if it is engine performance or the issues I mentioned above. 

Usually RC planes have much higher power to weight ratios.  Many RC planes can hover and even pull straight up from a hover.  That will never happen with a real airplane.

Re: New USAF Bomber
« Reply #23 on: September 19, 2016, 03:54:22 PM »
Ever heard the term "dynamic similitude"?  It explains why fluid mechanics do scale, and as a result, why scale models of aircraft can be tested in wind tunnels.
I should have said fluid dynamics don't scale well as they are reduced in size.  Once you are large enough where laminar versus turbulent flow aren't important things scale nicely.  As an example if you scale down an airliner to a model 2 inches long it will not fly correctly, especially not at a scale speed.  Scaling up works well, scaling down can lead to issues.


Technically we are both correct but if you are unconvinced neither of us will loose sleep over it.   :)

Re: New USAF Bomber
« Reply #24 on: September 19, 2016, 03:59:15 PM »
As size decreases the difference between laminar and non-laminar flow become increasingly important. With liquids surface tension starts to dominate.  An example of this is why older movies with with breaking dam effects look so fake; you can tell the drops are small.

I don't have experience with RC jet engines but I suspect that with the B1 model the wing surface is insufficient for the weight of the model.  Not sure if it is engine performance or the issues I mentioned above. 

Usually RC planes have much higher power to weight ratios.  Many RC planes can hover and even pull straight up from a hover.  That will never happen with a real airplane.

You're correct on power-to-weight with the smaller, lighter, prop-driven planes. They usually have power to spare. The bigger, heavier models are a different story, expecially the jets. The engine thrust with these models can't keep up with the increased weight.

The more motors and gizmos you add to increase realism, the more weight you add. Pretty soon the thing won't fly, as with the B-1 model cited earlier.

Re: New USAF Bomber
« Reply #25 on: September 19, 2016, 04:06:29 PM »
You're correct on power-to-weight with the smaller, lighter, prop-driven planes. They usually have power to spare. The bigger, heavier models are a different story, expecially the jets. The engine thrust with these models can't keep up with the increased weight.

The more motors and gizmos you add to increase realism, the more weight you add. Pretty soon the thing won't fly, as with the B-1 model cited earlier.
That makes sense, a jet engine is a jet engine.  The gas and electric planes are built super light and electric motors are crazy powerful.

Re: New USAF Bomber
« Reply #26 on: September 19, 2016, 04:49:11 PM »
I should have said fluid dynamics don't scale well as they are reduced in size.  Once you are large enough where laminar versus turbulent flow aren't important things scale nicely.  As an example if you scale down an airliner to a model 2 inches long it will not fly correctly, especially not at a scale speed.  Scaling up works well, scaling down can lead to issues.


Technically we are both correct but if you are unconvinced neither of us will loose sleep over it.   :)


Fluid dynamics scale quite well as long as all forces (e.g., pressure, shear, viscousity, surface tension etc.) at corresponding points of the scaled model have the same directions and scaled magnitudes.  I think your point is unless both models and forces are scaled correspondingly, the results obtained will not scale up to provide meaningful data.  And, yes that is very difficult to do in a movie studio or physical special effects house. 

A shout out here to my former professor and mentor, the late Dr Tom Davis.  Dr Davis was one of the world's foremost authorities on fluid mechanics back in the day, and was a leading figure in the infancy of computational fluid dynamics (CFD).  I'd never have made it through all those fluids courses without his patience and willingness to help what he called "....you damn hardware guys".


Re: New USAF Bomber
« Reply #27 on: September 19, 2016, 05:02:35 PM »

Re: New USAF Bomber
« Reply #28 on: September 19, 2016, 05:09:20 PM »
Bah. I was pulling for Black Widow

Northrop called their YF-23 the Black Widow II but it lost out to the YF-22 and never went into production.

Re: New USAF Bomber
« Reply #29 on: September 19, 2016, 05:30:48 PM »
That looks like a really expensive, really complex design with limited real world applications. These are going to wind up costing a billion dollars a plane. But these seem like they can only serve as a nuclear bombing or cruise missile platform but wouldn't be good for tactical bombing. For instance you would use this thing to wipe out Iran's capital city but these seem woefully unprepared to bomb random pockets of insurgents.

Anyone have more info? This is my uninformed opinion from reading the article and looking at the design. I'm concerned with the direction of the airforce. First with the failing F-35 project and now with these billion dollar a plane nuclear bombers. Meanwhile they're getting rid of the unbelievable efficient and cheap A-10 program with nothing to replace it.
They need a BUFF & BONE replacement.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/28/good-bye-b-52-stratofortress-a-new-american-long-range-strike-bomber-is-a-reality/