Mach .92 at 75ft above the deck, or through mountain passes with the computer driving, and 125,000 lbs of ordnance with external hardpoints.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer
FAR more payload and speed than the B-52 and the airframes are 30 years newer.
Mach .92 at 75ft above the deck, or through mountain passes with the computer driving, and 125,000 lbs of ordnance with external hardpoints.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer
That is mind Boggling! And the B-1 in its nuclear role was to fire off SRAM-2 supersonic (at least) thermonuclear missiles from 200 miles away! Or B-83 megaton class gravity bombs,,, or both.
Was the MIG-31 really that good? Was the Mainstay AWACS that good? And today is the S-400/500 as good as advertised?
I have wondered for a long time if the B-1 really was that vulnerable thirty years ago if it is really a good idea to rely on any sort of non-standoff nuclear weapon, stealth or not.
Along with the B-21, I think we should build B-1Rs to replace the B-52s. We need to be able to go low as well as high and speed is life. The B-1R could easily be designed to supercruise, even at low altitude. Updated coatings and stand off weapons would complete the mix. To a fighter pilot, the B-21 still looks too much like a target.