B-1B Reengine?

From the online Los Angeles Times, Oct. 8, 2003:

"The Air Force also is considering putting new engines on the B-1 to
double the speed of what is already one of the fastest bombers in the
world."

The link to the whole story follows, but the above sentence is all they
say about the Lancer.

"http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-upgrades8oct08,1,1385449.story?coll=la-headlines-business-manual"

Never heard this one before. I knew the B-1A was faster, and that
engine inlet changes were made to favor low radar cross section over
speed in the B-1B. Can they have speed and stealth nowadays, or will
the faster plane have a more B-1A-like cross section?

TIA.
Mark

Oops, there is other discussion about B-1, but the sentence I quoted is
the only one re the proposed re-engine.

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:08:00 GMT, Mark Schaeffer
wrote:

From the online Los Angeles Times, Oct. 8, 2003:

"The Air Force also is considering putting new engines on the B-1 to
double the speed of what is already one of the fastest bombers in the
world."



I thought the speed of the B model was limited due to the inlet design ?
Changing the engines wont change that I would have thought. What did they
have in mind, 60000 lb Kutzenovs off the blackjack ? Or something clever
with inlet redesign and engines from the F22 ?



greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:43:40 +0100, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:08:00 GMT, Mark Schaeffer
wrote:

From the online Los Angeles Times, Oct. 8, 2003:

"The Air Force also is considering putting new engines on the B-1 to
double the speed of what is already one of the fastest bombers in the
world."



I thought the speed of the B model was limited due to the inlet design ?
Changing the engines wont change that I would have thought. What did they
have in mind, 60000 lb Kutzenovs off the blackjack ? Or something clever
with inlet redesign and engines from the F22 ?



There are lots of possibilites but most of them have drawbacks. IIRC
the F101 in the B-1 has about a 2:1 bypass ratio making it more
efficient than members of the F100 and F110 family so it would seem to
eliminate those. They could redesign the intakes and use F119s but
from the AW&ST article a while back about DARPA's experimental
satellite launcher F119s are not in large supply and are expensive to
boot. They could do something like redesign the intakes AND use a
version of the F135 used on the X-32. The non VTOL version put out
about 52,000lbs of thrust in afterburner and then there's the RR claim
of the F136 putting out 56,000. But all of these options would cost
big $$$ and if they've talked about reengining the B-52s as long as
they have with no action I'm skeptical about them doing it with the
B-1, especially since they're reducing the numbers in service and
there are even those who would like to retire it altogether. Unless
they wanted to do a complete redesign of the engine nacelles there are
going to be problems simply because the possible engines are different
sizes and have varying airflow requirements. One possibility would be
taking say the 36k version of the F110, using extra fuel tanks in TWO
of the bays, filling the front bay with SDBs and/or a variety of
JDAMS, and redesigning the intakes for higher speed. Who knows?

Scott Ferrin wrote in message . ..
There are lots of possibilites but most of them have drawbacks. IIRC
the F101 in the B-1 has about a 2:1 bypass ratio making it more
efficient than members of the F100 and F110 family so it would seem to
eliminate those. They could redesign the intakes and use F119s but
from the AW&ST article a while back about DARPA's experimental
satellite launcher F119s are not in large supply and are expensive to
boot. They could do something like redesign the intakes AND use a
version of the F135 used on the X-32. The non VTOL version put out
about 52,000lbs of thrust in afterburner and then there's the RR claim
of the F136 putting out 56,000. But all of these options would cost
big $$$ and if they've talked about reengining the B-52s as long as
they have with no action I'm skeptical about them doing it with the
B-1, especially since they're reducing the numbers in service and
there are even those who would like to retire it altogether. Unless
they wanted to do a complete redesign of the engine nacelles there are
going to be problems simply because the possible engines are different
sizes and have varying airflow requirements. One possibility would be
taking say the 36k version of the F110, using extra fuel tanks in TWO
of the bays, filling the front bay with SDBs and/or a variety of
JDAMS, and redesigning the intakes for higher speed. Who knows?

Scott,

I have seen this proposal from Pratt to reengine the Bone with F119's
it offers some pretty impressive performance increases. Other than
just the speed increase it offers a nice increase in operating
altitude and take off performance. Unfortunately, I can't discuss
specifics since everything was proprietary and not for public
distribution.

Cheers,
Michael Kelly, Bone Maintainer

On 9 Oct 2003 09:35:52 -0700, (Michael E. Kelly)
wrote:

Scott Ferrin wrote in message . ..
There are lots of possibilites but most of them have drawbacks. IIRC
the F101 in the B-1 has about a 2:1 bypass ratio making it more
efficient than members of the F100 and F110 family so it would seem to
eliminate those. They could redesign the intakes and use F119s but
from the AW&ST article a while back about DARPA's experimental
satellite launcher F119s are not in large supply and are expensive to
boot. They could do something like redesign the intakes AND use a
version of the F135 used on the X-32. The non VTOL version put out
about 52,000lbs of thrust in afterburner and then there's the RR claim
of the F136 putting out 56,000. But all of these options would cost
big $$$ and if they've talked about reengining the B-52s as long as
they have with no action I'm skeptical about them doing it with the
B-1, especially since they're reducing the numbers in service and
there are even those who would like to retire it altogether. Unless
they wanted to do a complete redesign of the engine nacelles there are
going to be problems simply because the possible engines are different
sizes and have varying airflow requirements. One possibility would be
taking say the 36k version of the F110, using extra fuel tanks in TWO
of the bays, filling the front bay with SDBs and/or a variety of
JDAMS, and redesigning the intakes for higher speed. Who knows?

Scott,

I have seen this proposal from Pratt to reengine the Bone with F119's
it offers some pretty impressive performance increases. Other than
just the speed increase it offers a nice increase in operating
altitude and take off performance. Unfortunately, I can't discuss
specifics since everything was proprietary and not for public
distribution.

Cheers,
Michael Kelly, Bone Maintainer


I wonder how it would comepare to the original A. Mach 2.22 and
60.000 ft. But then there's the whole fuel efficency thing where the
F119 is design to be operated at the higher speeds for extended
periods of time. . .

In article , Greg Hennessy
writes
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:08:00 GMT, Mark Schaeffer
wrote:

From the online Los Angeles Times, Oct. 8, 2003:

"The Air Force also is considering putting new engines on the B-1 to
double the speed of what is already one of the fastest bombers in the
world."



I thought the speed of the B model was limited due to the inlet design ?
Changing the engines wont change that I would have thought. What did they
have in mind, 60000 lb Kutzenovs off the blackjack ? Or something clever
with inlet redesign and engines from the F22 ?



greg


They're going to use the design features that allowed the Me 262 to
exceed Mach 1. ;-)
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 09:05:06 +0100, Peter Twydell
wrote:


greg


They're going to use the design features that allowed the Me 262 to
exceed Mach 1. ;-)

Deploy the 'arndt' device, made from pure unobtainium ;-).


greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

Greg Hennessy wrote:

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 09:05:06 +0100, Peter Twydell
wrote:


greg


They're going to use the design features that allowed the Me 262 to
exceed Mach 1. ;-)

Deploy the 'arndt' device, made from pure unobtainium ;-).


greg

yep...then just watch it break Mach 1 going straight up...
--

-Gord.

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 14:52:45 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

Greg Hennessy wrote:

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 09:05:06 +0100, Peter Twydell
wrote:


greg


They're going to use the design features that allowed the Me 262 to
exceed Mach 1. ;-)

Deploy the 'arndt' device, made from pure unobtainium ;-).


greg

yep...then just watch it break Mach 1 going straight up...

its own arse.....


greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.