Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

New model preview: B-1B Lancer

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
unmerged(255172)

unmerged(255172)

Turbo Tape Games Dev
1 Badges
Jan 26, 2011
2.408
0
turbotapegames.com
  • Naval War: Arctic Circle
Presenting the US Air Force's B-1B Lancer, a long range supersonic strategic bomber. Characterized by its variable-sweep wing, no bomber in the world has a larger internal payload. Its relatively high speed and maneuverability, and also upgraded state-of-the-art avionics, gives it unique survivability for its size. The B1-B was originally developed for delivering nuclear weapons, but has found new life supporting ground troops in the US' ongoing brush wars.

lancer_maya_screenshot_RED.jpg

With a range close to 12,000 km, this is a truly intercontinental weapon, also providing the NWAC player with near infinite loiter time while waiting for the right time to strike.

In its current operations, the B-1B carries a large assortment of (more or less) smart bombs, like JDAM. Of particular interest to NWAC players, which will have to deal with a more hostile airspace most of the time, is its capability to carry 24 JASSM or JASSM-ER long range cruise missiles.

Some of you guys may know if it is true, as some sources say, that JASSM-ER (and maybe JASSM) can target ships (or at least that a variant exists that can do so).
 
Sweet! This is one of the units ive been waiting most for, because Strategic Bombers is the shit!

The B-1 does not have the largest internal payload though. The Blackjack has. 34 tons vs 40 tons.
 
Im very excited about the Blackjack too! The Blackjack has the largest internal weapons bay but it has no external pylons on the wings, so it cant carry as much weapons as the B-1 but it has a larger internal bay which is very good because your missiles dont mess with your RCS.
 
b1-n930910z-3cr_375X300.jpg
 
JanH said:
No, bombers are not able to land on carriers. They do, however, have a very long range, and support in-air refueling. They still have to land to rearm, though!
Click to expand...
yes really long range with lots of fuel.. but will an average game have time to deplete its fuel? if so will you be able to land on the nearest airport and re-takeoff with new bombs and fuels's
 
Evilfisher said:
yes really long range with lots of fuel.. but will an average game have time to deplete its fuel? if so will you be able to land on the nearest airport and re-takeoff with new bombs and fuels's
Click to expand...
But of course. All aircraft can land, rearm and refuel. On bingo fuel, they automatically return to base.

There is a provision for limits on weapon stores on airfields and carriers, too, which is going to be active in some scenarios.
 
There are a handful of carrier capable bombers, but emphasis on them has practically died as hybrid attack aircraft became so effective.

When you can either send out a small group of attack aircraft, or just launch a tomahawk and get a kill 95% of the time... why bother sending over a huge bomber?
The bombers are really only useful when you need to wreck a large area in a hurry, or need to do some serious bunker busting.
 
JanH said:
But of course. All aircraft can land, rearm and refuel. On bingo fuel, they automatically return to base.

There is a provision for limits on weapon stores on airfields and carriers, too, which is going to be active in some scenarios.
Click to expand...

Hello JanH,

Since most US bomber aircrafts would take off from either Newfoundland & Labrador, Thule Airbase, Alaska, the Azores, Norway or the UK, well the USA have two other very important bombers like the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit and the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. Personally, I would like to see the B-2 Spirit in the game since the USA claim they only have 20 of them...

Just a side note: there are no naval variants of the F-22 Raptors, so it means that they will have to carry extra fuel-tanks or set for airborne refueling if they actually escort any bombers or give support to ground troops on long distance missions... Personally, I would choose the A-10A Warthog in wintercamo for ground support missions...
 
Last edited:
The B-2 is a nice plane, but it didn't make the cut for the release version, partly for balance reasons, partly because it is not a primary platform for naval operations, and yes, the the B-1B is doing much the same job. Same for B52s.

Raptors and other non-carrier planes will have to be deployed to airports near the theater or have a very long trip, yes.
 
About the B-1B, and LRASM, if you're interested.

B-1B - can carry 24 JASSM, as we all know.

LRASM - the program is divided into two main shapes.

LRASM-A uses the JASSM-ER body to build a long range (370 - 925 km depending on how much fuel is loaded) stealth ASM. This means 24 per B-1B
LRASM-B uses the ASALM body for a Mach 4.5 high speed missile. According to wiki, ASALM had a range of 480 km. It should be roughly SRAM sized, so that could be used to get the number of rounds per B-1B, also 24.

The key party piece for the LRASM is that it will require minimal to none external sensors after launch. It won't need GPS, external cuing, etc. It will locate the targets and devise an the optimal approach to avoid hostile air defenses. That is the biggest difference between the LRASM and previous anti-ship missiles. Though, I have no idea how that'll be implemented into NWAC.
 
By 2030, if we go back on Navalised air units VS Ground-based ones, for the USA, it is pretty obvious: F-35B (NAU) & F-22A and F-35A (GAU); for Russia, it is a little less obvious, there are Navalised air units (NAU), Shore-based air units (SAU), Ground-based air units (GAU) and Makeshift air units (MAU) [by "Makeshift", I mean capable, multirole aircrafts that can effectively protect a given airspace despite their age in 2030; they namely act as a stopgap mesure, similar to USA's Boeing F-18F Super Hornet, since the "Regular" Hornet is gradually being retired from active combat service and replaced by Lockheed Martin's F-35).

As per what I read so far, Russia has no S/VTOL project aircrafts in sustained development, which means that it would be doubtful if they ever field a fifth-generation aircraft similar to the F-35B in the coming years, if their new carrier project gets a firm greenlight, they shall revive the Yak-41M project with huge upgrades. As we speak, only the SU-33M and the MiG-29K serve on the Admiral Kuznetsov, the former is being replaced by the latter; however the MiG-29K will be replaced by the Sukhoi T-50K (a navalised version of the Sukhoi T-50 [PAK FA]) in the near future, why? Because of the Sukhoi T-50K's new avionics and because of numerous accidents which occured recently due to the MiG-29's age (and maintenance). So which one would be chosen? I would surely choose Sukhoi's T-50K for the NAU over the MiG-29K! The Sukhoi-34 is being introduced as the SAU and Russia will have a sizeable complement of them in the coming years. Now, for the Ground-based air units, here is the difficulty: which one to choose between the MiG-31BM, the Sukhoi-30M2, the Sukhoi-35S, the MiG-35 and the Sukhoi T-50? Well, the MiG-31BM will be eventually retired due to its age and Mikoyan's new MiG aircraft project; it is somewhat in the same situation than the MiG-29SMT versus the MiG-35. The same thing is happening with the Sukhoi-30M2 and the Sukhoi-35S, the former will surely be replaced by the latter. Since MiG's new project aircraft will not be ready soon enough, we are left with the Sukhoi-35S, the MiG-35 and the Sukhoi T-50. Both the Sukhoi-35S and the MiG-35 are 4.5-generation aircraft, whereas the Sukhoi T-50 is a fifth-generation one. So, I would suggest that the Sukhoi T-50 be chosen as the GAU and that both the MiG-35 and the Sukhoi-35S be chosen as the MAU since both are different in their role and capabilities.

So let us summarize:

T-50K for the NAU;
Sukhoi-34 for the SAU;
Sukhoi T-50 (a.k.a PAK FA) for the GAU;
Both MiG-35 & Sukhoi-35S for the MAU.

=============

How does that sound?
 
Last edited:
That sounds pretty good. We'll not have the Su-34 at launch, alas. T-50K and T-50 will be the backbone of the Russian air superiority force (N and G), with MiG-29K as a makeshift navalized version (like the Super Hornets will do for the US).

I'd add the Su-27 to the MAU list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back