DOCSLIB.ORG

Future Carrier-Based Tactical Aircraft Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Future Carrier-Based Tactical Aircraft Study NASA Technical Memorandum 110388 Future Carrier-based Tactical Aircraft Study Jeffrey J. Samuels, Andrew S. Hahn, David R. Schleicher, Samuel B. Wilson III, Kevin B. Carbajal, and Paul A. Gelhausen March 1996 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Ames Research Center Moffett Field, California 94035-1000 NASA Technical Memorandum 110388 Future Carrier-based Tactical Aircraft Study Jeffrey J. Samuels, Andrew S. Hahn, David R. Schleicher, Samuel B. Wilson III, Kevin B. Carbajal, and Paul A. Gelhausen, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California March 1996 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Ames Research Center Moffett Field, California 94035-1000 Contents Page Nomenclature ................................................................................................................................................................ v Summary....................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Section I– Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 2 Section II – Aircraft Similarities................................................................................................................................... 4 A. Geometry ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 B. Aerodynamics................................................................................................................................................. 4 C. Structural Weight............................................................................................................................................ 4 D. Fixed Equipment............................................................................................................................................ 5 E. Propulsion Database....................................................................................................................................... 5 F. Design Missions............................................................................................................................................. 8 G. Weapons ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 H. Carrier Compatibility...................................................................................................................................... 10 I. Maneuver Requirements................................................................................................................................ 10 J. Structural Limits............................................................................................................................................. 10 K. Overall Density Constraints ........................................................................................................................... 11 L. Low Observables Design................................................................................................................................ 11 Section III – Aircraft Differentiators ............................................................................................................................ 13 A. Fighter ............................................................................................................................................................ 13 B. Attack ............................................................................................................................................................. 13 1. Conventional Attack................................................................................................................................ 15 2. Flying Wing............................................................................................................................................ 16 C. Multimission................................................................................................................................................... 16 1. STOVL Strike Fighter (SSF) .................................................................................................................. 18 Section IV – Results...................................................................................................................................................... 20 A. Basic Aircraft Data......................................................................................................................................... 20 B. Attack Aircraft Trends.................................................................................................................................... 20 1. Two vs. Four Bombs ............................................................................................................................... 28 2. One vs. Two Crewmembers .................................................................................................................... 28 3. External vs. Internal Weapons ................................................................................................................ 29 4. Conventional vs. Medium FW Planform ................................................................................................ 29 5. Technology.............................................................................................................................................. 31 6. Range-Payload Efficiency....................................................................................................................... 32 iii C. Multimission Aircraft Trends......................................................................................................................... 33 1. Impact of Requirements .......................................................................................................................... 33 2. Impact of Technology ............................................................................................................................. 36 3. Impact of Hover T/W Required .............................................................................................................. 38 D. Operational Mission Performance Data ......................................................................................................... 39 1. Strike Range vs. Payload ........................................................................................................................ 39 2. DLI Range vs. Mach Number ................................................................................................................. 41 3. CAP Range vs. Loiter Time .................................................................................................................... 43 E. SSF DOC Mission Fallout Range Performance Data .................................................................................... 47 1. Aircraft Class Comparison ...................................................................................................................... 48 2. Attack Aircraft Comparison .................................................................................................................... 52 F. Propulsion Sensitivities.................................................................................................................................. 53 Section V – Conclusions............................................................................................................................................... 55 A. Multimission Aircraft Comparison ................................................................................................................ 55 B. Attack Aircraft Comparison ........................................................................................................................... 55 C. Design Study Recommendations.................................................................................................................... 55 References..................................................................................................................................................................... 56 Appendix A – Detailed Information for Aircraft .......................................................................................................... 57 Summary Description ............................................................................................................................................ 57 Weights Description .............................................................................................................................................. 57 Propulsion Description .......................................................................................................................................... 58 Aerodynamics Description .................................................................................................................................... 58 Maneuver Performance Description ...................................................................................................................... 58 Mission Performance Description ......................................................................................................................... 58 Geometry
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Brief Review on Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System
    International Journal of Mechanical And Production Engineering, ISSN: 2320-2092, Volume- 5, Issue-6, Jun.-2017 http://iraj.in A BRIEF REVIEW ON ELECTROMAGNETIC AIRCRAFT LAUNCH SYSTEM 1AZEEM SINGH KAHLON, 2TAAVISHE GUPTA, 3POOJA DAHIYA, 4SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun, India E-mail: [email protected] Abstract - This paper describes the basic design, advantages and disadvantages of an Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) for aircraft carriers of the future along with a brief comparison with traditional launch mechanisms. The purpose of the paper is to analyze the feasibility of EMALS for the next generation indigenous aircraft carrier INS Vishal. I. INTRODUCTION maneuvering. Depending on the thrust produced by the engines and weight of aircraft the length of the India has a central and strategic location in the Indian runway varies widely for different aircraft. Normal Ocean. It shares the longest coastline of 7500 runways are designed so as to accommodate the kilometers amongst other nations sharing the Indian launch for such deviation in takeoff lengths, but the Ocean. India's 80% trade is via sea routes passing scenario is different when it comes to aircraft carriers. through the Indian Ocean and 85% of its oil and gas Launch of an aircraft from a mobile platform always are imported through sea routes. Indian Ocean also requires additional systems and methods to assist the serves as the locus of important international Sea launch because the runway has to be scaled down, Lines Of Communication (SLOCs) . Development of which is only about 300 feet as compared to 5,000- India’s political structure, industrial and commercial 6,000 feet required for normal aircraft to takeoff from growth has no meaning until its shores are protected.
    [Show full text]
  • Flow Visualization Studies of VTOL Aircraft Models During Hover in Ground Effect
    NASA Technical Memorandum 108860 Flow Visualization Studies of VTOL Aircraft Models During Hover In Ground Effect Nikos J. Mourtos, Stephane Couillaud, and Dale Carter, San Jose State University, San Jose, California Craig Hange, Doug Wardwell, and Richard J. Margason, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California Janua_ 1995 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Ames Research Center Moffett Field, California 94035-1000 Flow Visualization Studies of VTOL Aircraft Models During Hover In Ground Effect NIKOS J. MOURTOS,* STEPHANE COUILLAUD,* DALE CARTER,* CRAIG HANGE, DOUG WARDWELL, AND RICHARD J. MARGASON Ames Research Center Summary fountain fluid flows along the fuselage lower surface toward the jets where it is entrained by the jet and forms a A flow visualization study of several configurations of a vortex pair as sketched in figure 1(a). The jet efflux and jet-powered vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) model the fountain flow entrain ambient temperature air which during hover in ground effect was conducted. A surface produces a nonuniform temperature profile. This oil flow technique was used to observe the flow patterns recirculation is called near-field HGI and can cause a on the lower surfaces of the model. Wing height with rapid increase in the inlet temperature which in turn respect to fuselage and nozzle pressure ratio are seen to decreases the thrust. In addition, uneven temperature have a strong effect on the wing trailing edge flow angles. distribution can result in inlet flow distortion and cause This test was part of a program to improve the methods compressor stall. In addition, the fountain-induced vortex for predicting the hot gas ingestion (HGI) for jet-powered pair can cause a lift loss and a pitching-moment vertical/short takeoff and landing (V/STOL) aircraft.
    [Show full text]
  • Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Incorporates Many Significant Technological Enhancements Derived from Predecessor Development Programs
    AIAA AVIATION Forum 10.2514/6.2018-3368 June 25-29, 2018, Atlanta, Georgia 2018 Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference F-35 Air Vehicle Technology Overview Chris Wiegand,1 Bruce A. Bullick,2 Jeffrey A. Catt,3 Jeffrey W. Hamstra,4 Greg P. Walker,5 and Steve Wurth6 Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Fort Worth, TX, 76109, United States of America The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II incorporates many significant technological enhancements derived from predecessor development programs. The X-35 concept demonstrator program incorporated some that were deemed critical to establish the technical credibility and readiness to enter the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) program. Key among them were the elements of the F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing propulsion system using the revolutionary shaft-driven LiftFan® system. However, due to X- 35 schedule constraints and technical risks, the incorporation of some technologies was deferred to the SDD program. This paper provides insight into several of the key air vehicle and propulsion systems technologies selected for incorporation into the F-35. It describes the transition from several highly successful technology development projects to their incorporation into the production aircraft. I. Introduction HE F-35 Lightning II is a true 5th Generation trivariant, multiservice air system. It provides outstanding fighter T class aerodynamic performance, supersonic speed, all-aspect stealth with weapons, and highly integrated and networked avionics. The F-35 aircraft
    [Show full text]
  • Supersonic STOVL Ejector Aircraft from a Propulsion Point of View
    N84-24581 NASA Technical Memorandum 83641 9 Supersonic STOVL Ejector Aircraft from a Propulsion Point of View R. Luidens, R. Plencner, W. Haller, and A. blassman Lewis Research Center Cleveland, Ohio Prepared for the Twentieth Joint Propulsion Coiiference cosponsored by the AIAA, SAE, and ASME i Cincinnati, Ohio, June 11-13, 1984 I 1 1 SUPERSONIC STOVL EJECTOR AIRCRAFT FROH A PROPULSION POINT OF VIEW R hidens,* R. Plencner,** W. Hailer.** and A Glassman+ National Aeronautics and Space Administration Lewis Research Center Cleveland, Ohio Abstract 1 Higher propulsion system thrust for greater lift-off acceleration. The paper first describes a baseline super- sonic STOVL ejector aircraft, including its 2 Cooler footprint, for safer, more propulsion and typical operating modes, and convenient handllng, and lower observability identiftes Important propulsion parameters Then a number of propulsion system changes are 3. Alternattve basic propulsion cycles evaluated in terms of improving the lift-off performance; namely, aft deflection of the ejec- The approach of this paper is to use the tor jet and heating of the ejector primary air aircraft of reference 5 as a baseline. and then either by burning or using the hot englne core to consider some candidate propulsion system flow The possibility for cooling the footprint growth options The vehicle described in refe- is illustrated for the cases of mixing or lnter- rence 5 was selected on the basis of detailed changlng the fan and core flows, and uslng a alrcraft design and performance analyses The
    [Show full text]
  • Aircraft Design Class 2008
    AircraftAircraft DesignDesign ClassClass Sam B. Wilson III Chief Visionary Officer AVID LLC www.avidaerospace.com 9 September 2008 TTO Tactical Technology Office 9 Sept.’08 / pg # 2 DesignDesign MethodsMethods What Size? What Shape? 9 Sept.’08 / pg # 3 Design “As Drawn” Computer evaluation of Conceptual Designs “As Drawn” Assumes fixed external mold- lines JSFJSF X-35BX-35B Weight as independent variable - “loop 9 Sept.’08 / pg # 4 closure” IntegrationIntegration Challenge:Challenge: To design a supersonic fighter/attack aircraft that offers the operational flexibility of Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) Need to make the same design compromises as a conventional fighter, plus one: use the available thrust in a manner that allows a controlled vertical landing This single added constraint requires a more systematic approach to the design of an aircraft. 9 Sept.’08 / pg # 5 V/STOLV/STOL AircraftAircraft DesignDesign ProcessProcess Step 1 Define wing & horizontal stabilizer geometry Located engine “vertical thrust” center with respect to aerodynamic center 9 Sept.’08 / pg # 6 Ref NASA CR-177437 V/STOLV/STOL AircraftAircraft DesignDesign ProcessProcess Step 2 Add minimum length inlet/diffuser Add cockpit and forebody 9 Sept.’08 / pg # 7 Ref NASA CR-177437 V/STOLV/STOL AircraftAircraft DesignDesign ProcessProcess Step 3 Add vertical tails Assign location dependent masses landinglanding geargear flightflight controlscontrols radarradar 9 Sept.’08 / pg # 8 Ref NASA CR-177437 V/STOLV/STOL AircraftAircraft DesignDesign ProcessProcess
    [Show full text]
  • Small-Scale Experiments in STOVL Ground Effects
    NASA Technical Memorandum 102813 Small-Scale Experiments in STOVL Ground Effects Victor R. Corsiglia and Douglas A. Wardwell, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California Richard E. Kuhn, STO-VL Technology, San Diego, California April 1991 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Ames Research Center Moffett Field, California 94035-1000 SMALL-SCALE EXPERIMENTS IN STOVL GROUND EFFECTS Victor R. Corsiglia and Douglas A. Wardwell NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, California, 94035 USA Richard E. Kuhn STO-VL Technology San Diego, California, 92128 USA Abstract Pi local static pressure A series of tests has been completed inwhich Pjet total pressure at jet exit suckdown and fountain forces and pressures were measured on circular plates and twin-tandem-jet AM jet induced pitching moment generic STOVL (short takeoff and vertical landing) configurations. The tests were conducted using a Ap local pressure difference; _P = small-scale hover rig, for jet pressure ratios up to 6 Pi- Pamb and jet temperatures up to 700 °F. The measured suckdown force on a circular plate with a central jet S model planform area was greater than that found with a commonly used empidcal prediction method. The present data T thrust, T = 7.0 A( Pamb)[(NPR 0.286) -1], showed better agreement with other sets of data. NPR < 1.893 The tests of the generic STOVL configurations were conducted to provide tome and pressure data with T = A(Pamb)[(1.2679)NPR -1 ], a parametric variation of parameters so that an NPR > 1.893 empirical prediction method could be developed. The effects of jet pressure ratio and temperature T jet temperature were found to be small.
    [Show full text]
  • NASA SUPERSONIC STOVL PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM Peter G
    NASA Technical Memorandum 100227 NASA Supersonic STOVL Propulsion ~ Technology Program (HASA-TR-100227) NASA SUPERSONIC STOVL PBOPIJLSIOl TECBHOLOGY PROGRAW (RASA) 20 P N88- 14093 CSCL 2iS Unclas G3/07 0116607 Peter €3. Batterton and Bernard J. Blaha Lewis &search Center i%velunti, Ohio Prepared for the htemational Poweted Lift Codenace sponsored by the Society of Automotm l3Dgheem Santa Clara, California, December 7-10,19$7 NASA SUPERSONIC STOVL PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM Peter G. Batterton and Bernard J. Blaha National Aeronautics and Space Administration Lewis Research Center I. Cleveland, Ohio 44135 ABSTRACT technology is the key to allowing it to happen (1,2)*. Supersonic capable STOVL fighter/at ack air- It has always been a goal of NASA Aeronau- craft can provide capabilities for close support tics Research to address and resolve high risk, and air superiority which will be highly desira- long lead technologies. An attempt to design a ble in the future. Previous papers in this current advanced, supersonic cruise capable STOVL session described the historical aspects, trade- fighter aircraft would lead to the conclusion offs, and requirements for powered lift propul- that the required propulsion technologies are not sion systems, and it is shown that propulsion available. Further, demonstration of these tech- technology is more key to the success of this nologies will be required before the DoD and type of aircraft than for any previous fighter/ industry will attempt even a prototype. There- attack aircraft. This paper discusses the NASA fore, the overall goal of the program and pro- Lewis Research Center program activities which jects described in this paper is to have the pro- address required propulsion technology develop- pulsion technology in place to permit the low ment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Raf Harrier Story
    THE RAF HARRIER STORY ROYAL AIR FORCE HISTORICAL SOCIETY 2 The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the contributors concerned and are not necessarily those held by the Royal Air Force Historical Society. Copyright 2006: Royal Air Force Historical Society First published in the UK in 2006 by the Royal Air Force Historical Society All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the Publisher in writing. ISBN 0-9530345-2-6 Printed by Advance Book Printing Unit 9 Northmoor Park Church Road Northmoor OX29 5UH 3 ROYAL AIR FORCE HISTORICAL SOCIETY President Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Michael Beetham GCB CBE DFC AFC Vice-President Air Marshal Sir Frederick Sowrey KCB CBE AFC Committee Chairman Air Vice-Marshal N B Baldwin CB CBE FRAeS Vice-Chairman Group Captain J D Heron OBE Secretary Group Captain K J Dearman Membership Secretary Dr Jack Dunham PhD CPsychol AMRAeS Treasurer J Boyes TD CA Members Air Commodore H A Probert MBE MA *J S Cox Esq BA MA *Dr M A Fopp MA FMA FIMgt *Group Captain N Parton BSc (Hons) MA MDA MPhil CEng FRAeS RAF *Wing Commander D Robertson RAF Wing Commander C Cummings Editor & Publications Wing Commander C G Jefford MBE BA Manager *Ex Officio 4 CONTENTS EARLY HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES AND EMERGING 8 STAFF TARGETS by Air Chf Mshl Sir Patrick Hine JET LIFT by Prof John F Coplin 14 EVOLUTION OF THE PEGASUS VECTORED
    [Show full text]
  • THE ART of FLIGHT INSPIRING AEROSPACE THROUGH the PAINTBRUSH TRANSITIONING Leased Engines Or Aircraft? Keep Your Asset Prepared, Protected, and Ready to Fly
    June 2020 RUSSIA’S GREEN GOALS GREEN RUSSIA’S PRESERVING AVIATION HISTORY TRACKING PILOT INTERVENTIONS THE ART OF FLIGHT INSPIRING AEROSPACE THROUGH THE PAINTBRUSH www.aerosociety.com AEROSPACE June 2020 Volume 47 Number 6 Royal Aeronautical Society TRANSITIONING leased engines or aircraft? Keep your asset prepared, protected, and ready to fly. Willis Asset Management provides global engine and aircraft transition management solutions to meet your unique needs. Our award-winning, independent consultancy is focused on providing remote solutions to help mitigate against the risks of planned – and unplanned – asset transitions. OUR REMOTE CAPABILITIES INCLUDE: • Technical records management • Aircraft & engine lease return support • Periodic records inspections • Back-to-birth trace reviews on LLPs • Records systems maintenance • CAMO & shadow CAMO services • Part 145 maintenance services Willis Engine Repair Center (UK & US locations) Ask about our aircraft disassembly and aircraft maintenance & storage solutions at Teesside International Airport in the UK! [email protected] | +44 (0) 1656.754.777 | www.willisasset.com Volume 47 Number 6 June 2020 EDITORIAL Contents Aviation heritage hanging Regulars 4 Radome 12 Transmission by a thread The latest aviation and Your letters, emails, tweets aeronautical intelligence, and social media feedback. analysis and comment. At around this time of year, the summer air show season would be swinging 58 The Last Word into gear – with weekends of aerobatics, flypasts and the like. But today, 11 Pushing the Envelope Keith Hayward considers yet another part of aviation is currently grounded due to the worldwide Rob Coppinger analyses the the effects of the Covid-19 challenges of designing a air transport shutdown on Coronavirus pandemic, with air shows cancelled and museums shuttered.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Hearings Before the Committee on Appropriations
    S. HRG. 109–130 Senate Hearings Before the Committee on Appropriations Department of Defense Appropriations Fiscal Year 2006 109th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION H.R. 2863 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES Department of Defense Appropriations, 2006 (H.R. 2863) S. HRG. 109–130 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H.R. 2863 AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2006, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Department of Defense Nondepartmental witnesses Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 99–854 PDF WASHINGTON : 2005 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman TED STEVENS, Alaska ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri TOM HARKIN, Iowa MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland CONRAD BURNS, Montana HARRY REID, Nevada RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HERB KOHL, Wisconsin JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire PATTY MURRAY, Washington ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois MIKE DEWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L.
    [Show full text]
  • Carrier Deck Launching of Adapted Land-Based Airplanes
    DOI: 10.13009/EUCASS2017-275 7TH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE FOR AERONAUTICS AND SPACE SCIENCES (EUCASS) Carrier deck launching of adapted land-based airplanes HERNANDO, José-Luis and MARTINEZ-VAL, Rodrigo Department of Aircraft and Spacecraft School of Aerospace Engineering Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 28040Madrid, Spain [email protected]; [email protected] Abstract Harrier VTOL is the basic combat airplane for many Navies, but it will soon be retired from service. Three main alternatives appear: to incorporate another, already existing or under development airplane; to design a completely new aircraft; or to modify an existing land-based airplane for carrier suitability. The present paper is part of a study to assess the feasibility of the third option. In former papers the authors have addressed the compatibility of land-based airplanes with aircraft carriers and the details of the carrier approach guidance and recovery; and showed some major modifications required in wing structure and landing gear. The research proposed here studies the airplane performance during the launching manoeuvre, formed by a take-off run on the flat deck followed by a ski-jump. 1. Introduction Along its 100 years of existence naval aviation has progressed astonishingly, but it is still one of the most demanding environments for airplane operations: extremely short, moving runways; flight in rough air generated by the vessel’s superstructure wake and from the sea surface; etc [1-3]. Modern aircraft carriers are classified into three categories: vessels designed to operate only with thrust vectoring airplanes; ships designed for short take-off and arrested recovery (STOBAR); and carriers equipped with catapults and arresting devices (CATOBAR).
    [Show full text]
  • Gallery of USAF Weapons Note: Inventory Numbers Are Total Active Inventory Figures As of Sept
    Gallery of USAF Weapons Note: Inventory numbers are total active inventory figures as of Sept. 30, 2015. By Aaron M. U. Church, Senior Editor ■ 2016 USAF Almanac BOMBER AIRCRAFT B-1 Lancer Brief: Long-range bomber capable of penetrating enemy defenses and de- livering the largest weapon load of any aircraft in the inventory. COMMENTARY The B-1A was initially proposed as replacement for the B-52, and four proto- types were developed and tested before program cancellation in 1977. The program was revived in 1981 as B-1B. The vastly upgraded aircraft added 74,000 lb of usable payload, improved radar, and reduced radar cross section, but cut maximum speed to Mach 1.2. The B-1B first saw combat in Iraq during Desert Fox in December 1998. Its three internal weapons bays accommodate a substantial payload of weapons, including a mix of different weapons in each bay. Lancer production totaled 100 aircraft. The bomber’s blended wing/ body configuration, variable-geometry design, and turbofan engines provide long range and loiter time. The B-1B has been upgraded with GPS, smart weapons, and mission systems. Offensive avionics include SAR for tracking, B-2A Spirit (SSgt. Jeremy M. Wilson) targeting, and engaging moving vehicles and terrain following. GPS-aided INS lets aircrews autonomously navigate without ground-based navigation aids Dimensions: Span 137 ft (spread forward) to 79 ft (swept aft), length 146 and precisely engage targets. Sniper pod was added in 2008. The ongoing ft, height 34 ft. integrated battle station modifications is the most comprehensive refresh in Weight: Max T-O 477,000 lb.
    [Show full text]