Well this is one of the more unusual options I have seen for modifying the B-1B...

Boeing's Been Granted A Patent For Turning The B-1B Into A Gunship Bristling With Cannons

A B-1B Lancer 'gunship' may sound like something a kid doodles on his desk during a 4th-grade math class, but Boeing has actually been awarded a patent for just that.

U.S. Patent 9,963,231 B2 was awarded on May 8th to Boeing. It depicts a number of cannon configurations that can be stowed in a B-1B's weapons bays and extended down outside of those bays for use. Our good friend and marvelous patent sleuth Stephen Trimble of Flightglobal.com was the first to find the patent.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20 ... th-cannons

One of the images below but a lot more at the link.



The full patent is here, http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=09963231&IDKey=666A1766EFB3%0D%0A&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO2%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsearch-bool.html%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526co1%3DAND%2526d%3DPTXT%2526s1%3D%2525229%2C963%2C231%252Bb2%252522%2526OS%3D%2526RS%3D

Kind of hard to imagine the role of a B1 using a gun.

Smaller, slower aircraft ok..



I ones made a sketch for new style MPA, for piracy intervention. Then again a B1..

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4289/349 ... 5e2b_b.jpg

The gunship option works well for slower aircraft like the C-130 Hercules, which an circle for hours around a target.

But attaching cannons to a B-1 seems like a waste of resources.

Whilst I haven’t read through the full patent my guess is that it’s disguising something either in the claims to effectively patent something by stealth (maybe like a specific mounting system) to prevent someone else using it for a different application. “How do we disguise the fact that we are trying to patent the mounting for our new electric pulse thruster unit for our regional turboprop as people don’t know we are making that yet” make it look like you have designed something for a strategic bomber.

or publicly disclosing something in the description to prevent someone else taking a stranglehold if it as they don’t feel like it’s something that would be worth going through the defending process but still want the ability to use it unencumbered.


Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

Whilst I haven’t read through the full patent my guess is that it’s disguising something either in the claims to effectively patent something by stealth (maybe like a specific mounting system) to prevent someone else using it for a different application. “How do we disguise the fact that we are trying to patent the mounting for our new electric pulse thruster unit for our regional turboprop as people don’t know we are making that yet” make it look like you have designed something for a strategic bomber.

In mega-companies, there's also no shortage of engineers filing patents just to get a patent. "How do I convince the junior associate in the legal department that this is novel and useful so I can get a $3,000 bonus just for filling out some paperwork?" I had a coworker who I'm pretty sure spent 50% of his time preparing commercially useless patent applications.

DfwRevolution wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Whilst I haven’t read through the full patent my guess is that it’s disguising something either in the claims to effectively patent something by stealth (maybe like a specific mounting system) to prevent someone else using it for a different application. “How do we disguise the fact that we are trying to patent the mounting for our new electric pulse thruster unit for our regional turboprop as people don’t know we are making that yet” make it look like you have designed something for a strategic bomber.

In mega-companies, there's also no shortage of engineers filing patents just to get a patent. "How do I convince the junior associate in the legal department that this is novel and useful so I can get a $3,000 bonus just for filling out some paperwork?" I had a coworker who I'm pretty sure spent 50% of his time preparing commercially useless patent applications.

This is true, I have colleagues who worked for FMCG companies who had patent filing as a KPI which is weird because effectively the more money they spend the more pay they get. I’m much more a fan of the trade secret route if possible.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why is military tech patented at all? If the technology has real value, the patent provides clues to the opposing side and will for sure not hinder anybody to build the same weapon.

I can only see these reasons:
- Western companies prevent other Western companies to copy it and make money from the idea (-> no danger in case of B-1 gunship)
- Deterrence (-> make sure everbody knows you are super)
- Obfuscation by publishing fake intentions (-> make sure, the other guy thinks you are doing the opposite of what you really want to do).
- Claim to possess fake capabilities (-> make sure, the other guy is in fear of capabilities, you don't actually have)

The normal reason for patents (prevent other companies to make money from the idea) in most cases makes no sense. The Chinese or the Russians won't copy the good ideas to make money on the world market, but to improve their military strength.

Boeing is the biggest patent troll on Earth and the best case for patent reform I know.

Nomadd wrote:

Boeing is the biggest patent troll on Earth and the best case for patent reform I know.

When you loose the patent for the 727 tail air duct, you will do all you can to not have make the same mistake again.

bt

Is it feasible to make an effective mini railgun for deployment on a B1-B..... .....


https://s.hswstatic.com/gif/railgun-8.gif


Or could it just be another directed energy weapon of sorts

Devilfish wrote:

Is it feasible to make an effective mini railgun for deployment on a B1-B..... .....


https://s.hswstatic.com/gif/railgun-8.gif


Or could it just be another directed energy weapon of sorts

I don't think a railgun is feasible, I doubt there is sufficient energy generated to make a rail gun weapon effective. Certainly a DEW is a possibility and fibre pumped lasers have allowed greater efficiencies but given the location of the system in the internal weapons bay I don't see the value in investing that much in a B-1B just to use a DEW, especially when it would need to be operated in a permissible air environment.


A better image from the article.

Ozair wrote:

Certainly a DEW is a possibility and fibre pumped lasers have allowed greater efficiencies but given the location of the system in the internal weapons bay I don't see the value in investing that much in a B-1B just to use a DEW, especially when it would need to be operated in a permissible air environment.

Wonder if it's related to this..... .....

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... we-448608/

Quote:
"The US Air Force has started preparing to rapidly stage a demonstration of a highly mature laser weapon system (LWS) for an unspecified “airborne vehicle”, with the potential for a follow-on production programme.

The plans for the near-term demonstration of a “High Energy Laser (HEL) Flexible Prototype” programme are revealed in an 11 May notice to potential suppliers from the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC)."

JetBuddy wrote:

The gunship option works well for slower aircraft like the C-130 Hercules, which an circle for hours around a target.

But attaching cannons to a B-1 seems like a waste of resources.

Don't forget, the B1 has the swing-wing making it much more efficient at slow(er) speeds than the average mach 1 bomber.

exFWAOONW wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

The gunship option works well for slower aircraft like the C-130 Hercules, which an circle for hours around a target.

But attaching cannons to a B-1 seems like a waste of resources.

Don't forget, the B1 has the swing-wing making it much more efficient at slow(er) speeds than the average mach 1 bomber.

I suppose. But it's still like mounting a .22 rifle on an M1 Abrams.

Sure why not, if they are being sent somewhere to bomb stuff why not blast some stuff up with a machine gun if there is the chance also.

Just think of how many A10s of bullets that thing could carry.

This was already done 30+ years ago! In Real Genius:
https://youtu.be/4nKXjJ7O0s4?t=9




Tugg

Tugger wrote:

This was already done 30+ years ago! In Real Genius:
https://youtu.be/4nKXjJ7O0s4?t=9




Tugg

Good one! I was thinking of the same thing.