War Air Force Touts B-1B Bomber's Potential To Carry Huge Hypersonic Missiles And External Stores - The B-1B may have to fight for its life in the not so distant future, but new upgrades could give it the ammo it needs to survive the budget ax.

BONE_Buddy

That Defense Sperg.
kiwifarms.net

1.jpeg
The B-1B fleet may be tired and war wary after constant deployments overseas, but the USAF is continuing to look at how to improve the aircraft's combat punch as it enters the back end of its career.

This goes far beyond adding new avionics to its flight deck, new sensors, and communications gear. The flying force is now exploring ways to give the heavy-hitting Bone even more magazine capacity than it already has and the ability to carry outsized hypersonic missiles in its internal weapons bay.

The core of these exploratory efforts is centered around two latent features that were built into the swing-wing bomber's design many decades ago. The B-1B was built with external hardpoints to carry large nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. These hardpoints were never really activated in a significant manner operationally, that is aside from the one under its right 'neck' area that it has used to mount the Sniper Advanced Targeting pod in recent years. The cruise missile racks themselves were pulled out of service completely following the B-1B losing its nuclear delivery role due to the START treaty.

2.jpg
(B-1B with cruise missile mounting racks attached to external hardpoints during testing.)

By introducing new racks for these pylons, the B-1B could carry even more weaponry than it currently does, and weapons of shapes and sizes that are not conducive to the dimensional confines of its internal weapons bays.

As for that internal weapons bay—actually, the Bone has three—the front two are connected by a common bulkhead that can be repositioned in order to create a much larger continuous bay. Doing so could allow for the carriage of large hypersonic missiles that require big boosters to get their vehicles up to speed and altitude. Currently, the B-52 is being allocated for the hypersonic weapons truck role, with external pylons specially engineered to weapons weighing tens of thousands of pounds. Yet the Bone's potential ability to also carry these weapons, and do so internally, would add tremendous value to the aging and increasingly finicky to operate type.

3 Actual.jpg
(A B-52 carrying an captive carry prototype of the hypersonic AGM-183A Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon, or ARRW, last June. )

All this and more was being put up for discussion at the 412th Test Wing and Global Strike Command's "expanded carriage demonstration" that occurred on August 28th, 2019, at Edwards Air Force Base. At the gathering, industry partners were brought in to take a look at what the Air Force was thinking of for its middle-aged bomber in order to springboard development of these and other concepts centering on expanding the B-1B's weapons carrying capability.

An Air Force news item about the show and tell session reads in part as follows:
“The purpose of the demonstration was to show that we’re still able to move the bulkhead from the forward intermediate bay to the forward location; increasing the intermediate bay capacity from 180 inches to 269 inches, said Lt. Col. Dominic Ross, B-1B program element monitor, AFGSC. “Additionally, we demonstrated that we can still carry weapons externally on six of the eight hard points, which increases our overall carriage capacity.”
“It increases the magazine capacity of the B-1B. Currently we can carry 24 weapons internally, now it can be increased to potentially 40 based on what type of pylon we would create,” Ross said. “This gets the B-1 into the larger weapons, the 5,000 pounders. It gets it into the hypersonics game as well.”
Ross said that the B-1B was designed with eight hard points to carry weapons, as well as a moveable bulkhead…
4.jpg
(A photo of industry partners and USAF personnel taken at the event. Note the AGM-158 JASSM mounted on the pylon (red arrow pointing toward it). This is normally where the Sniper targeting pod goes. )

The Small Diameter Bomb II, also known as Stormbreaker, was also on display at the event. If it was integrated on the B-1B, it could potentially carry throngs of these all-weather precision glide bombs at one time. In some cases, this would allow the Bone lay waste to entire airfields, port facilities, armored formations, and other large target sets with pinpoint precision on a single pass, while also staying outside the heart of enemy air defenses.

5.jpeg
(GPS-guided JDAMs on the left and SDB II Stormbreaker on the right. )



The Air Force news item continues:
Capt. Timothy Grace, test weapons systems officer, 419th FLTS, provided technical expertise about the B-1B aircraft used for the demonstration and was able to explain to the group how the proposed concept is relevant to the warfighter.
“I wanted to make sure it was tested correctly and reviewed it to make sure it’s relevant to the warfighter,” Grace said. “And absolutely, there are things we can use this for.”
Another point he made was how quickly the bulkhead modification can be accomplished, and then reversed.
“It’s not a permanent modification, it’s something that can be done through a few work shifts with the Maintenance (Flight),” he said. “So depending on what the targets are that we’re going after, the weapons we need to carry, we can move that bulkhead, and do the external carriage.”
From a commander’s viewpoint, the expanded carriage would open up better planning options, said Col. Richard Barksdale, 28th Operations Group commander, from Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota.
“It would basically increase the weapons capacity to make the bomber more efficient, so that we’re able to strike more targets with the same aircraft,” Barksdale said. “It would allow us to more efficiently plan for targeting and use fewer aircraft with fewer aircrews in harm’s way to strike the same number of targets. It would also decrease the support required, whether that’s tankers or other support assets.”
Barksdale compared the added capability to having “more arrows in the quiver of the B-1.”
“It really shows the aircraft was originally designed for that capability; to move that bulkhead forward and make a larger bay, it shows the forethought of the original engineers and now, that can potentially come into fruition,” Barksdale said. “To me, just the opportunity to increase the weapons load capacity is pretty exciting. It’s a pretty impressive capability.”
Ross said the initial idea was brought forth from B-1B crews, including himself. He previously served as a B-1B weapons systems officer, and then as a pilot.

This demonstration occurred at a very interesting time in the B-1B's service life. During the Obama Administration, there was an initiative that looked to potentially convert the type into arsenal ship of sorts, loaded with a larger number and larger variety of precision-guided munitions, including long-range standoff weaponry. Before that, the B-1R supercruising region bomber upgrade was also floated, a potential initiative that also would have seen external stores stations be used operationally as mission requirements dictate. Neither of these programs came to fruition.

Fast forward to today and the B-1B fleet has found itself in an amazingly poor readiness condition. It has also been the source of headlines as of late due to systemic issues with critical life safety systems that have led to its grounding on multiple occasions for significantly long periods of time. The fleet is now being dug out of its dilapidated state by taking a much-needed pause in deployments, but its future remains, well, up in the air, to a certain degree.

6.jpeg
(USAF B-1B upgrade programs as of 2018. )

Even though it is slated to serve into the 2030s, at which time the B-21 Raider will replace it in full, just this week the USAF brass hinted that it will once again look to retire certain 'legacy' systems in order to free up funds for new weaponry and other initiatives. Of the bomber force, the B-1B is the only one at risk of being on the chopping block.

It will be interesting to see what comes of all this, but releasing the B-1B from the weapons carriage restrictions that are currently in place due to the configuration of its internal weapons bays may significantly change the Pentagon's rationale for keeping it around in the short and long term. Also, being able to carry more weapons on external stations, and integrating smaller, but more numerous types, like Stormbreaker, may help provide that arsenal ship-like capability that was seen as so attractive just a few years ago.

In addition to JASSM, the B-1B is capable of employing its anti-ship cousin, the stealthy Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile, better known as LRASM. With more hardpoints, it could make the B-1B an even more capable stand-off anti-ship strike asset than it already is.

These features and the ability to haul around the USAF's new golden child—hypersonic weapons—may just give the Bone the reprieve that it suddenly finds out it desperately needs.
_______________
I have a soft spot for the old B1-B (as if you all couldn't tell), and this article has definitely hit it.

By the way if you are interested in defense related autism (and haven't already seen it), this thread is there for daily defense news and the sperging associated with it. Come on down and say hi and ask questions if you want.
 

thx1138

Are you now, or have you ever been?
kiwifarms.net
Ah, the B-1. What a strange journey it's had. For some overview, and I will bow to our Wardaddy Overlord to correct me, here's how the B1 went...

Prologue:

In the late 1950s/early 1960s, the US wanted to build the ultimate manned bomber. This was before ICBMs and SAMs were a guaranteed thing. Supersonic was thought to be the way to go: fly very high, fly very fast, drop from an insane altitude no single-engine or even double-engine fighter or anti-aircraft gun can reach, bomb with impunity. The answer to all of these needs was the XB-70 Valkyrie. A variable-geometry (the wings and nosecone could reconfigure for subsonic flight) strategic bomber capable of Mach-3 flight, with a 30000lb bomb-load, 80k altitude capability. Then a couple of things happened, one of which was pretty much accidental. Firstly, the ICBM program got off the ground (no pun intended) in a huge way. Secondly, Gary Francis Powers got shot down while on a Sunday Drive over the USSR. Now, this second thing was a bit of an own-goal on the part of the Department of Defense, because while Powers was shot down, what we in the US didn't know was that it wasn't a single missile (SA-2 "Guideline") that did it. The route Powers was taking flew over many, many SAM installations and they salvoed everything they had at him. They shot down fighter jets sent up to intercept him accidentally. The SA-2 is no easy thing to re-load; had Powers been flying a "pathfinder" mission ahead of a bomber stream, all the Soviets could've done was watch in horror as wing after wing of B52's entered their airspace and wrecked their country's shit. But, again, the US didn't know that. All that was known was that a "single missile" had brought down the U-2, which was flying in the regime that the XB-70 was going to.

So the XB-70 got cancelled, but not until it scared the Soviets into building their own scaled-down version (which they cancelled too), but also into building the MiG-25, which, again, the DoD was terrified of, so they went on a crash (again, no pun intended) R&D program to build the world's greatest jet fighter, which they did: the F15 Eagle. Of course, once the west got a "sample" with Belenko's MiG-25 landing in Japan, we found out the Foxbat was shit for dogfighting, ate its own engines, and couldn't handle worth a damn, among other things.

One-and-a-half-decades-later:

The USAF had burned through the XB70 program, and the nascent B58 Hustler, and the sole job of bomb truck and bucket-of-sunshine-delivery-plane went to the B52. Problem was, the B52 was old (HA!), wearing out (HA HA!) and due to be replaced (HA HA HA!). The Department of Defense once again said: supersonic, high altitude, high survivability.

Enter the Rockwell B-1A:

The B-1A was designed to be a supersonic, swing-wing nuclear bomber that would replace the B52. It'd been under development for years, costing billions of dollars. It had some interesting features: it shared the "escape capsule" crew module concept with the F-111, among others. Prototypes were built, deemed too expensive by the Carter administration...and that was that. The B-1 was consigned to history, never to enter service.

OR WAS IT? :

Of course, once Carter lolnoed his entire presidency, the DoD and administration broke out the credit cards, looked at the new catalog ("new": most weapon systems bought with the Reagan Defense Spending Initiative starting in 1981/82 were already in low-volume production: the M1, the Bradley, the F15, the F16, the A10...all signed off on for production, just in smaller numbers, under the Carter admin), and said "Rack 'em up."

Curiously, though, one item not on the menu was the B-1A.

However, in what has been deemed the greatest corporate welfare program ever for defense contractors ('cause brother, there are a lot of individual subcontractors who worked on that thing: think Space Shuttle level of subcontractors), the B1 was put back into development. This time, though, a new model was developed: gone was the heavy escape pod for the crew. Stations ejected normally, with seats. Gone too was it's super-sonic capability. Now, the B-1 is capable of Mach flight, but only just. Either 1.1 or 1.2, @Bone Daddy can correct me on that one. This was accomplished by changing the variable-shape inlets to fixed. Over time, from the early 1980s 'til now, the B-1 has become a useful tool in the USAF arsenal. It isn't what the B52 is in terms of...well, in a lot of terms. It's kinda? stealthy-ish in that it does have a smaller radar return than a B52, but shit, a schoolbus coated in aluminum foil has a smaller radar return than a B52. From a Cold War era fleet size of 110 or so, various treaties (which I'm sure the Russians never adhered to, in any meaningful way), the fleet is down to about sixty or so. But it's a super-flexible airframe. One variant I wish had been created but wasn't, was an "arsenal ship", which would have been an air-supremacy version that would've gone aloft along with B52s and other B1-B's going in if the big show happened. These would've carried dozens of AIM-54 Phoenix missiles in rotary bays and pylons and slaved them to the B1-B's radar and been used to sweep enemy interceptor screens. Think of it as carrying aloft your own SAM site.

Phew. That was pretty :autistic: - hope I got that right, @Bone Daddy
 

TowinKarz

Thoroughly Unimpressed
kiwifarms.net
Another "problem" with the XB-70 besides being obsoleted by ICBMs and next-gen SAMs was that to achieve those high speeds and altitudes, the airframe had to be made of expensive titanium alloys and composites, and this was back when titanium was hard to get, as most of the mines for it were in Soviet territory. This wasn't like today where golf clubs and pistol frames can be made of the stuff and not also be exotic to the point of only being found on some Shiek's nightstand, so the unit-cost per plane was exorbitant as certain component parts literally cost more their their weight in gold to make. Even the paint had to be specialized, due to the extreme heat and flexing of the plane in-flight, the ordinary kind would just (and did) blister off after one usage.

Only 2 XB-70's were built, and one was lost in rather embarrassing circumstances as an F-104 fighter got a bit too close to it during a flight that was only being held to take PR pictures and accidentally crashed into and clipped off it's tail, causing both craft to spiral into the ground.

The sole remaining example is on display at the Air Force Museum, so if you're interested, you can get your taxpayer's money's worth out of going to gawk at it.
 
Last edited:

thx1138

Are you now, or have you ever been?
kiwifarms.net
To be fair the F104 collision was due to the vortices around the Valkyrie literally sucking the F104 in.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: BONE_Buddy

BONE_Buddy

That Defense Sperg.
kiwifarms.net
Ah, the B-1. What a strange journey it's had. For some overview, and I will bow to our Wardaddy Overlord to correct me, here's how the B1 went...

Prologue:

In the late 1950s/early 1960s, the US wanted to build the ultimate manned bomber. This was before ICBMs and SAMs were a guaranteed thing. Supersonic was thought to be the way to go: fly very high, fly very fast, drop from an insane altitude no single-engine or even double-engine fighter or anti-aircraft gun can reach, bomb with impunity. The answer to all of these needs was the XB-70 Valkyrie. A variable-geometry (the wings and nosecone could reconfigure for subsonic flight) strategic bomber capable of Mach-3 flight, with a 30000lb bomb-load, 80k altitude capability. Then a couple of things happened, one of which was pretty much accidental. Firstly, the ICBM program got off the ground (no pun intended) in a huge way. Secondly, Gary Francis Powers got shot down while on a Sunday Drive over the USSR. Now, this second thing was a bit of an own-goal on the part of the Department of Defense, because while Powers was shot down, what we in the US didn't know was that it wasn't a single missile (SA-2 "Guideline") that did it. The route Powers was taking flew over many, many SAM installations and they salvoed everything they had at him. They shot down fighter jets sent up to intercept him accidentally. The SA-2 is no easy thing to re-load; had Powers been flying a "pathfinder" mission ahead of a bomber stream, all the Soviets could've done was watch in horror as wing after wing of B52's entered their airspace and wrecked their country's shit. But, again, the US didn't know that. All that was known was that a "single missile" had brought down the U-2, which was flying in the regime that the XB-70 was going to.

So the XB-70 got cancelled, but not until it scared the Soviets into building their own scaled-down version (which they cancelled too), but also into building the MiG-25, which, again, the DoD was terrified of, so they went on a crash (again, no pun intended) R&D program to build the world's greatest jet fighter, which they did: the F15 Eagle. Of course, once the west got a "sample" with Belenko's MiG-25 landing in Japan, we found out the Foxbat was shit for dogfighting, ate its own engines, and couldn't handle worth a damn, among other things.

One-and-a-half-decades-later:

The USAF had burned through the XB70 program, and the nascent B58 Hustler, and the sole job of bomb truck and bucket-of-sunshine-delivery-plane went to the B52. Problem was, the B52 was old (HA!), wearing out (HA HA!) and due to be replaced (HA HA HA!). The Department of Defense once again said: supersonic, high altitude, high survivability.

Enter the Rockwell B-1A:

The B-1A was designed to be a supersonic, swing-wing nuclear bomber that would replace the B52. It'd been under development for years, costing billions of dollars. It had some interesting features: it shared the "escape capsule" crew module concept with the F-111, among others. Prototypes were built, deemed too expensive by the Carter administration...and that was that. The B-1 was consigned to history, never to enter service.

OR WAS IT? :

Of course, once Carter lolnoed his entire presidency, the DoD and administration broke out the credit cards, looked at the new catalog ("new": most weapon systems bought with the Reagan Defense Spending Initiative starting in 1981/82 were already in low-volume production: the M1, the Bradley, the F15, the F16, the A10...all signed off on for production, just in smaller numbers, under the Carter admin), and said "Rack 'em up."

Curiously, though, one item not on the menu was the B-1A.

However, in what has been deemed the greatest corporate welfare program ever for defense contractors ('cause brother, there are a lot of individual subcontractors who worked on that thing: think Space Shuttle level of subcontractors), the B1 was put back into development. This time, though, a new model was developed: gone was the heavy escape pod for the crew. Stations ejected normally, with seats. Gone too was it's super-sonic capability. Now, the B-1 is capable of Mach flight, but only just. Either 1.1 or 1.2, @Bone Daddy can correct me on that one. This was accomplished by changing the variable-shape inlets to fixed. Over time, from the early 1980s 'til now, the B-1 has become a useful tool in the USAF arsenal. It isn't what the B52 is in terms of...well, in a lot of terms. It's kinda? stealthy-ish in that it does have a smaller radar return than a B52, but shit, a schoolbus coated in aluminum foil has a smaller radar return than a B52. From a Cold War era fleet size of 110 or so, various treaties (which I'm sure the Russians never adhered to, in any meaningful way), the fleet is down to about sixty or so. But it's a super-flexible airframe. One variant I wish had been created but wasn't, was an "arsenal ship", which would have been an air-supremacy version that would've gone aloft along with B52s and other B1-B's going in if the big show happened. These would've carried dozens of AIM-54 Phoenix missiles in rotary bays and pylons and slaved them to the B1-B's radar and been used to sweep enemy interceptor screens. Think of it as carrying aloft your own SAM site.

Phew. That was pretty :autistic: - hope I got that right, @Bone Daddy
Wardaddy Overlord… Now that is the first time I have been called that.

You did a very good job doing a primer, thx1138 (though it is BONE_Buddy, not Bone Daddy).



I will fill in a couple of blanks though.

The B1-A was designed to be fast at both high altitude AND low altitude. In order to do that, in addition to the variable geometry wings, the B1-A had variable geometry air inlets. There was a bias towards being high and fast Mach 2.2+ high. The maximum theoretical flat hat speed of Mach 1.2. However, its practical floor speed was 0.85 Mach.

Several things happened on the path to the B1-B.

The first as already mentioned was a defense budget crush. The B1-A require a *lot* of titanium, and titanium was one of the most expense materials regularly worked with back in the day. So designers of the B1-B stripped out as much of the metal as they reasonably could at the cost of speed. Weight saving measures were also introduced, part of which was redistributed into payload reinforcement as external hardpoints (for Air Launched Cruise Missiles) were to be a key feature of the design.

Second was the advent of modern stealth research. There was a quantum leap in stealth technology research that took place between the design phase of the B1-A and the B1-B. The general shape of the aircraft was changed to its recognizable form today, and the air inlets had baffles put in place to reduce RADAR returns. All this means the RADAR cross section of the B1-B is roughly 1 square meter frontally. That is 6 times smaller that the F-4 Phantom, 10 times smaller than the B1-A, and something like 100 times smaller than the B-52. For the time, that was nearly invisible to all but the most powerful systems.

Thirdly, Synthetic-Aperture Radar (SAR) breakthroughs ushered in a revolution in terrain following capabilities. I can’t overstate just how magical this was. Ground/terrain had always been a massive problem for RADARs to track and discriminate against. Now we could reliably fly through valleys by RADAR alone.

Fourth, Low Altitude Ingress/Penetration had finally been accepted into acceptable doctrine after the exceptional fiasco that was the Vietnam war ended. To make a long story very short. Ground based RADARs have an extremely hard time detecting below the horizon. Whether that horizon is a hill, or just the curvature of the earth, if you can stay below the proverbial line of sight, you are effectively hidden.


So what does that leave us with? A drop in total top speed from Mach 2.2 to Mach 1.25. At low altitude the B1-B maintains the same emergency maximum as the B1-A, but the practical maximum was raised from 0.85 to 0.92. I can attest to the fact that the *actual* top speed of the bomber is quite a bit higher than the official top speed. It is just a final mission sort of thing. The payload was increased from 30,000 pounds to 75,000 pounds (heaviest in fleet). Automatic terrain following allows safe and consistent flying at 50ft (or lower). And until the introduction of the F117 and the B-2 it was the stealthiest bomber in existence.

____________
The “Arsenal Ship” variation you were talking about has come up several times. The B1-R (regional) is the closest it has ever come to fruition. Something like that may still happen yet.

I better post this now, or else I will be sperging all night.
 

thx1138

Are you now, or have you ever been?
kiwifarms.net
I apologize for the slip-up on your user name! I was using the auto-complete dropdown and not paying attention. I didn't realize the titanium shortage had impacted the B1 design that much, that is interesting. Regarding SAR, even in games/sims I've played it's damn near black magic. I still don't entirely get it but building a "patch map" (for example, in Jane's F15E) of terrain and area around the target you're flying to is almost like cheat mode.

I didn't realize the B1-A was going to be Hi-Lo-Hi, that's interesting to know. Did the introduction of SRAM dictate any of the B1-B's tactics?
 

pwnest injun

An Honest Man is Always in Trouble
kiwifarms.net
Not sure I remember correctly, but I thought I saw something a few years back that showed the B1 delivering ordinance at half the cost per lb dropped as the B52, just on account of the insane cost of operation of those flying loafs.

Maybe that's why they want to ditch it? Doesn't waste enough money?
 

BONE_Buddy

That Defense Sperg.
kiwifarms.net
I apologize for the slip-up on your user name! I was using the auto-complete dropdown and not paying attention. I didn't realize the titanium shortage had impacted the B1 design that much, that is interesting. Regarding SAR, even in games/sims I've played it's damn near black magic. I still don't entirely get it but building a "patch map" (for example, in Jane's F15E) of terrain and area around the target you're flying to is almost like cheat mode.

I didn't realize the B1-A was going to be Hi-Lo-Hi, that's interesting to know. Did the introduction of SRAM dictate any of the B1-B's tactics?
So, I had a big thing written up last night before the services were interrupted, and I am too lazy to rewrite it (note to self, write down your long posts on a text editor before moving over to the browser).

So, on the name thing, It is fine, it happens.

Next, the titanium shortage caused a *lot* of weird things to happen. For instance, we got a lot of the Titanium for the SR-71 (90%+ of which was Titanium based) from the Soviet Union. What most people don't know is that for just about anything flying past Mach 2 (or really Mach 1.5), Titanium is effectively required for the design. e.g. The F-22.

Here is an interesting video on SAR:
But yeah, it is great stuff.

Yeah, most people didn't/don't realize that the B-1A was built for that sort of dual usage. Being dual usage make it very complicated and expense, even relative to the B-1B.

As for the Short-Range Attack Missile (SRAM), it was introduced before even the first B-1A was delivered.
The key words here are "Short-Range". It had a maximum range of 50 Nautical Miles. That means that you still have to penetrate close to 1000 miles before you can target Cold War Moscow.

What you probably mean is AGM-86 ALCM.

When Carter got in, as we discussed previously, his mission was to shitcan the B1 project. In order to do that they had to come up with a viable option of saving the B-52. In comes the Air-Launched Cruise Missile. It is what saved the B-52, as before it was a simple carpet bomber, with little chance of surviving to strike the Soviet Union in a nuclear war.

The need for a fast scramble bomber, that could take off from places that the B-52 couldn't, became a recognized issue during Regan's election campaign. As such the B1 became one of the hammers used against the Carter Administration, by the Republicans.

Unfortunately, The ALCM as designed was too long for the internal bays of the B-1A, as such when the B-1B was designed, it had external mount points for the ALCM, and would have been used in the even of nuclear war. However, having the external mounts slowed the aircraft down and used more fuel, so it was not used often outside of some testing and training.

It really wasn't until the JASSM came around that the B-1B got a real cruise missile.

Still you have to remember, conventionally accurate cruise missiles didn't come around until the very late 80s and early 90s. So for non-nuclear combat missions, the ALCM (and the SRAM) didn't change much in all actuality.
 

thx1138

Are you now, or have you ever been?
kiwifarms.net
I knew about the scheming that got the titanium from Russia, I always thought that was quite a coup!

re: SRAM, no, that's the specific one I was thinking of. It has a 110mi. range, but that's still knife-fighting range. I'd imagine that'd have been used to pop SAM and radar installations along the way. Regardless, apparently it had a lot of reliability problems.

That's very interesting about the cruise missile's history; I'd assumed it was an accurate, proven technology from the get-go.
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino