B-1 SPOOKY

this is still in the works or planning stages

but man would that be a monster




add in the guns and save part of the bay for an array of weapons to missiles to decoys.


seems like a good use for a bomber getting painted into a corner

a reply to: noscopebacon



This isn't the only 'custom' B1.

No idea if any of them are regularly flying, but a few of these were supposedly headed to Guam a while back.

No idea if they were actually deployed though.

a reply to: noscopebacon

It looks like a transport ship for our future vegan woke military so they can stealth drop into cities across the globe and cry

Jk this looks rad as #

Well, except for the reality that the B-1 averages something like a 50% mission capable rate as it is now. Adding everything that they want to add, to an airframe that at times can barely get off the ground is going to drop that even lower. They aren’t going to build new B-1s, they’re going to modify existing aircraft.

a reply to: crayzeed

and a c-130 could have a better chance?


a supersonic CAS platform that can carry bombs and has a cannon.


they already use them in that roll and like the video says they fly 500ft or lower as a show of force right below the speed of sound.


and it would be used in a role to support ground troops and special forces, that means most SAM sites will be down if a c130 is orbiting let alone a b1

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Well, except for the reality that the B-1 averages something like a 50% mission capable rate as it is now. Adding everything that they want to add, to an airframe that at times can barely get off the ground is going to drop that even lower. They aren’t going to build new B-1s, they’re going to modify existing aircraft.

Some of that 50% rate is due to the customization.l activity.

That takes quite a bit of time.

a reply to: noscopebacon


I was told the b1 spooky was being designed with 2 particular targets in mind.

NK Mountains, and reaching Taiwan faster than our existing platforms can.

Not sure if this is true or not, but seems to make sense to me.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

It does, but even the B-2 generally hits a higher mission capable rate, with a significantly smaller fleet. They spent billions upgrading the B-1s, and even came up with a two part PDM system to make it faster to get them through, and they still can’t crack 60% mission capable.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Hey man I know this is fringe off topic but we don’t have the “you got mail” icon anymore but was curious if you could recommend a good flight sim for planes like this and missions it would handle?

Short time I was on it I never saw higher than a 33% mission capable rate, they had B-1's at a deployed location they fired up 3 to get 1 airborne as well.

To handle a bunch more stuff, they would need a 100% overhaul of its computing capabilities and avionics package, that would help with the MC rate.

they would still have hydraulic problems.

Probably two thirds of the lost flights I saw were avionics, the rest were hydraulic.

HATE is not a strong enough word for that airplane.

ETA: I was in south dakota with them, apparently, they work marginally better in west texas and while deployed.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

It does, but even the B-2 generally hits a higher mission capable rate, with a significantly smaller fleet. They spent billions upgrading the B-1s, and even came up with a two part PDM system to make it faster to get them through, and they still can’t crack 60% mission capable.

Ah, I have no information on that. Do you know what is causing this low rate?

Was only referring to the 2+ years each 'custom' is pulled out of service for modification.

Also don't think it would be possible to mod a B2 for these missions. Some were tested on B52 proxies though. Wouldn't be a suitable platform for these, but made early testing easier.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Short time I was on it I never saw higher than a 33% mission capable rate, they had B-1's at a deployed location they fired up 3 to get 1 airborne as well.

To handle a bunch more stuff, they would need a 100% overhaul of its computing capabilities and avionics package, that would help with the MC rate.

they would still have hydraulic problems.

Probably two thirds of the lost flights I saw were avionics, the rest were hydraulic.

HATE is not a strong enough word for that airplane.

ETA: I was in south dakota with them, apparently, they work marginally better in west texas and while deployed.

But irishhaf the X-men had a black bird that would fly them to the savage land before the commercial break back in the 90’s 😜

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood
Ah, I have no information on that. Do you know what is causing this low rate?

A POS aircraft and piss poor design.

originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood
Ah, I have no information on that. Do you know what is causing this low rate?

A POS aircraft and piss poor design.

Maybe we should unveil it's replacement then?

Make all the B1s 'customs' for particular tasks that other birds can't do very well.

(And more business for my employer)

Or just retire them if really that bad?

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

The B-2 was only used to show that a smaller fleet has a better readiness rate, despite being as, or more, maintenance intensive. This is one of those “wow that’s cool” things that would ruin the B-1. You’re going to add hydraulically actuated systems to a hydraulic system that already has problems, add a lot of weight to the aft of the aircraft, totally changing their CG, and ask them to fly in an envelope they don’t like already, while hammering them with vibration as it shoots.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Couldnt they make it Fly by wire instead? And make the wing swing mechanical instead of hydraulic?

a reply to: yuppa

Possible, the F-111E was apparently fly by wire though I am not sure how much needs to be gutted and replaced to make that work.

I want to say and this might have changed since my experience ended in 2007, that boeing took over trying to fix the b-1 issues so who knows if they have the desire to do so.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

The B-2 was only used to show that a smaller fleet has a better readiness rate, despite being as, or more, maintenance intensive. This is one of those “wow that’s cool” things that would ruin the B-1. You’re going to add hydraulically actuated systems to a hydraulic system that already has problems, add a lot of weight to the aft of the aircraft, totally changing their CG, and ask them to fly in an envelope they don’t like already, while hammering them with vibration as it shoots.

All of that is accurate except the hydraulics, the two systems I am aware of that got tested are self contained modules modified from another system, and an equal amount of weight had to be removed from the bird, so this one would only have a single mission going forward. The weight and movement isn't nearly as significant as a traditional 'spooky' though. Just can't discuss the 'guns'.

Not sure if that is how it was built though, we only make parts, not systems, and we have nothing to do with the planes themselves.

I don't know if it's accurate or not, but was told a b2 would require building an entire airframe for this, while a b1 could be 'modified'.

Was also told that b1 had special software that was necessary for this particular mission, that no other plane uses, and plenty of excess power available, which was a significant concern with some other platforms related to this capability.

But if b1 is really that difficult to maintain readiness for, then they should probably not have used that platform for anything.

Or we should have built 5, so one would always be mission capable?

On the other hand, if b1 is that bad for readiness, maybe they chose b1 for this experiment knowing that AF wouldn't miss one.