Vampyre

The optimal area for the larger engine would have to have its placement close to the wing chord line close to the positions they are at now. With that placement things can be done to deal with the change in thrust line such as lengthening the fuselage or changing the tail surfaces by reducing their length from the fuselage and reducing the aspect ratio of the tailplane while trying to maintain the surface area. Larger canards can also assist a bit. The intake trunks will have to be located over the top of the fuselage for the ordnance issues. Well, if you want the same airplane then just build more of the same. If you need more capability from a performance standpoint, then you have to do some redesign. As for the engines, the difference between the F-101 and the F-136 installed in a B-1 airframe would be 124,000lbs total thrust for the F-101 and 160,000lbs for the F-136. With a max takeoff weight of around 470k-480k lbs any pilot would appreciate the 31,000lbs of extra thrust provided by the four F-136 powerplants. Yup, that's exactly how it looks right now. Unfortunatly the trend for fewer quality aircraft will continue as long as we let it happen. The problem is amplified by our national debt, the recession and our government playing big brother to everyone.

I knew someone would point that out. The position of the current engine pods on the B-1B restricts its ordnance loadouts. The engines intakes will have to be mounted differently in both cases to get full utility out of its ordnance carrying ability. So why not have two large and powerful engines in a different mounting position? Adjustments can be made for clearance issues. I still see a lot of potential in the design.

I kind of like the idea of bringing two versions of the B-1 into the equation. One, the EB-1C, as a conventional ordnance dump truck/standoff jammer that has long range and loiter time for battlefield persistance and uses as many readily available accessories as possible to keep costs down. The other, the B-1D, will be a stealthy Mach 2.5+ silver bullet penetrator. We will go ahead and give the EB-1C high bypass non-afterburning turbofan engines such as the GE90 or the GExx, basiclly a standard COTS engine built for airliners. For the B-1D put a version of the GE F-136 in there and call it a day. Give the B-1D air to air capability via dedicated missile bays (like the F-22) and keep the two to three standard bomb bays. Install AESA radar in both and give them both an advanced EW suite for self protection. I say maintain a four man crew (two pilots and two WSO/ECMO's) for the EB-1C and a three man crew (two pilots and a WSO) for the B-1D. The EB-1C can have a fixed geometry (or limited VG wing) to maintain more internal space for fuel, weapons and avionics. For weapons the B-1D will use Everything in the inventory from Conventional/Nuclear bombs and missiles to high energy lasers. The EB-1C can have all of its latent bomb carrying capability (external hardpoints) activated for conventional bombs and standoff weapons. I'm thinking 100-140 EB-1C's and 60 B-1D's should be sufficient for a 60 year service life, maybe build a few extra as attrition replacements. My idea seems to dovetail with FC's in function but not in the hardware. ... or, as is the answer to the Navy problems, we could just sell the Air Force some Super Hornets

What type and model are you flying?

Like this one?

Loving the new Tomcat Shock and Awe From the Sea The Speed of Heat! Night Hunter Bombs Away!

A remake of Top Gun... ok, lets see what we have to work with here. First off, NO MORE TOMCATS so we might be able to get the Air Force to fly some fighters in or we could wheel the Tomcat or Phantom in the static park in (They looks to be in pretty good shape). Would we still be able to call the movie "Top Gun" even though it is now called "Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center"... not quite as catchy me thinks. The setting has moved to Glorious Fallon NV, so we could showcase the night life, I'm thinking Wednesday nights at the Depot :yes:. Heck, that could be where our protagonist meets his love intrest. Oh, and we could get Val Kilmer to reprise his role as Tom Kizanski picking up where he left off on Saturday Night Live flying regional hops into Reno. Ooh! even better, we could get ol' Tom "Look I'm Insane and Jumping on a Couch" Cruise to take the helm as CO of NSAWC. Wha'd'ya think? I think a movie about Red Flag might be better. (I just enjoyed watching all the jets launching out and returning... awesome sights) BTW- Just got back from Fallon 2 weeks ago

Awesome, I can't wait to get rid of the F-111D pit I have been using.

Seeing as the F-14's are already in the works I'd like to change my #1 to the Tu-22M-3 Backfire C.

I remember seeing the Concorde and Red Arrows at RIAT in 1985. My dad was stationed at Fairford at the time.

Well, It has been my experience that #2 is in fact a #2. He will shoot Mavericks when instructed. When I use him for anything, I will load him with EO guided missiles and that is it. If you give him any other weapons (rounds for the gun included) he will promptly get shot down. As soon as he has exhausted his Mavericks I send him home. Other than that he is useless. If you are counting on him to help you, your virtual pilot might as well do this... :suicide2:

It's been a few years (3-4) since Ive heard anything about the new build Mirage F-1C from Mirage Factory. It's good to hear this is still a MF project. Is there any word on the MF working on an F-1AZ Version? It would be a wonderful addition for this mod. It would also be nice to have a Bosbok or Kudu in the mix too. I like the look of the Bosbok.

So long Port Tawfik. Bringing the Hammer Down! Lofting CALCM's Whiping by the Sho't MiG-27K Flogger in SF2!