Jump to content

Talk:Rockwell B-1 Lancer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Pilot comments

From a former B-1B Copilot from 1993-1996,

Outstanding overall summary of the B-1B. I wish I could edit, but any information I could add would probably be outside the scope of the encyclopedia entry.

A former B-1B pilot


Yeah, I am a Former Com/Nav/DAS Avionics Tech on the B-1B from 94 to 97. I could tell all kinds of stories, and anecdotes, but they wouldn't be very effective in describing the aircraft its self. I might give it a try. Though my knowledge is 8 years old. Headrattle 02:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

SDB Payload

Anyone one know about how many Small Diamater Bombs it will be able to carry? Also I remember seeing in a print encyclopedia many years ago a rather interesting cutaway drawing that showed some type of rotary bomb bay. Does anyone have any information on that or am I remebering incorrectly? Cuitlahuac

The B-1B should be able to carry 144 SDBs internally -- three bomb bays, eight slots per rotary launcher, six SDBs per rotary launcher slot. In theory it may also be able to carry an additional eight four-packs of SDBs on its external pylons, but the external pylons are not normally fitted at all due to strategic weapons treaty limits. At present, though, the SDB is only used by the F-15E Strike Eagle (and the F-14D Tomcat for its final deployment); no other aircraft has been qualified to deploy it operationally, although the Air Force is *planning* on eventually having pretty much all multirole fighters and bombers SDB-capable -- pretty much everything but the Harrier, and that probably only because it's being replaced by the F-35 JSF anyhow. --JaceCady 15:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Each of the B-1B's bomb bays can be loaded with a fuel tank or one of three different bomb modules. The Multi-Purpose Launcher is a rotary setup carrying eight nuclear weapons (normally AGM-69 SRAM missiles or B-61 bombs), the Conventional Bomb Module is a straight-stack setup carrying twenty-eight 1,000-lb conventional weapons such as Mark 82 bombs or ten cluster bomb canisters, and the Conventional Rotary Launcher is a rotary setup carrying eight 2,000-lb conventional weapons such as Mark 84 bombs. As of the Block E upgrade to the B-1B, the CRL can also carry the JSOW GPS-guided glide bomb, although only four will fit due to the JSOW's bulk. --JaceCady 15:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Pop Culture Ref

If I remember my Real Genius correctly, the Lancer featured in the movie had a tan/brown camo scheme, which would make it one of the B-1A prototypes, and not a B-1B. The problem is, I can't remember where I read about the paint scheme experiments, so I'm uncertain which of the prototypes it is. --SebastianP 16:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The third B-1A carried the camo at one point, don't know about the others. - Emt147 Burninate! 20:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

i believe this qualifies as a noteworthy appearance; the imdb trivia page mentions the B-1B, and it is featured fairly prominently in the movie (even though sometimes its just bad visual effects with a model). though i dont recall it being mentioned by name, it is shown several times, and plays a significant role in the plot. --Quietly (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

article improvement

germanspeaking-wikipedia has a bigger article about B1, so maybe you can take some content over to your article. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1 --217.162.50.114 16:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Merging/Redirecting

This article looks almost identical to Rockwell B-1. I think the Rockwell article should redirect to this one. - Fnlayson 00:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Budget?

Anyone know why this currently claims the project finished on budget? The planes went from being $30 million each to $100m by the time Carter cancelled the project. Reagan brought it back, and it went to $280m per unit. Unless there's a cite for the "on budget" thing outside a political speech, I'm minded to change that line. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Random name (talk • contribs).

  • Starting the program over meant a new contract. So that would change the budget. Although that particular statement could still be wrong. -Fnlayson 17:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Additionally we should remember that this was during a period of some of the highest inflation in US history. Between 1970 and 80 prices just about doubled, so the increase from 100m to 280m represents an increase of about 40% over the original figures in inflation-adjusted dollars. Much of this would likely be due to the ECM suite. Maury 21:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Boeing as manufacturer ?

Why is Boeing listed as manufacturer and even in the Intro as Boeing B-1B Lancer ? If Rockwell International and this article are correct then Boing did not built a single B-1 aircraft. They bought major parts of Rockwell (space tech, aviation) in 1996, the last B-1B was delivered in 1988. --Denniss 21:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

They are responsible for support and service of active service B-1Bs. They are also the ones pushing the B-1R concept. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You are correct that Boeing never made them, but when you are talking about complex military aircraft, the manufacturer is heavily involved with the aircraft for maintenance and upgrades as long as it is in service. Boeing is currently filling that role. If your look here, you will see they list it as one of their "products". --rogerd 21:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't Boeing a major sub to Rockwell during the B-1 production, as well? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The company name

There seems to be some debate about the name of the company that should appear in the intro. I consider the current "solution" to be poor at best. More surprising is that Rockwell International didn't exist under after the B-1 project had already started, having formed in 1973 while the contract was granted in 1969[1]. Rockwell's only design team prior to that point was Aero Commander, hardly up to the task of building the B-1. Depending on the precise date of the submission of the original contracts, the proper name is North American Rockwell, and it seems reasonable to point out that the design was "really" from North American Aircraft, not entirely surprising given their history with the B-70. Maury 22:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Yep, they were North American Rockwell from 1967 [2] until renaming themselves Rockwell International in 1973.[3] They got in on the Shuttle program during this time as well. -Fnlayson
  • Hum right now North American Rockwell redirects to Rockwell International. Unless I'm missing something, the manufacturers should be North American Rockwell, Rockwell International, and Boeing. Technically Rockwell was initially the subsidary 'Boeing North American' after Boeing acquired them. -Fnlayson 23:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems to be splitting too many hairs to go into who designed the B1 - North American Aviation ceased before the contract was awarded; a couple of B1s were built in the 70s and a hundred were built in the 80s by Rockwell (not sure if it had the International in the name at that time). So designing the plane - everyone including the Wright brothers helped. Rockwell (?International) Built the plane. --Supercoop 18:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Well there are a couple of issues here. One is that the plane was definitely designed by the NAA team. Claiming this is akin to suggesting the Wrights helped with the design a specious, sophomoric comment. This plane was designed by NAA engineers at NAA design shops and built on NAA production lines. A mention of this somewhere does not seem too much to ask.
Secondly all of the aircraft were built by Rockwell, not Boeing, yet the article calls it Boeing first and Rockwell second. NAA also built the P-51, but I don't see anyone suggesting that we re-name that article the "Boeing P-51". It's also the Shorts Skyvan (Bombardier), Supermarine Spitfire (Vickers) and even the Wyleys Jeep (DailmerChysler). We typically don't change name of designs when the company that built them changed hands after the fact, and doing so here strikes me as ridiculous, no mater how much Boeing might appreciate the free advertizing. Maury 22:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I think your splitting too many hairs on what I said ... I wanted to draw the line on WHO manufactured the plane - simple enough eh? I have removed Boeing - we'll see if it sticks this time. --Supercoop 14:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

BONE nickname

The paragraph below on the B-1's nickname was moved from Trivia to the lead section.

Although officially nicknamed the "Lancer", B-1 crews almost never refer to the aircraft by this name. Crews prefer to call the B-1 the "Bone". Origins of the "Bone" nickname are disputed, but appear to stem from an early newspaper article about the aircraft wherein its name was phonetically spelled out as "B-ONE". Crews, who generally felt the "Lancer" moniker was unappealing, quickly latched onto the "Bone" nickname.

This does not seem appropiate for the lead to me. Does anybody see this differently? - Fnlayson 05:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. It also needs to drop weasel words ("appear to stem" "generally felt") and needs to grow a citation. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
However, it is not 'trivia', but pertinent information on the aircrafts name. Perhaps it belongs in a footnote. Regardless, a trivia section of any kind is not an appropriate location for it. Karl Dickman talk 07:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

F101 question

I noticed the following today:

The engines, the General Electric F101s, were originally tuned for high-speed performance, and sacrificed cruise performance as a side-effect. For the new B-1B, GE modified the engine with the addition of a low-bypass fan, creating the F101-102, GE's first afterburning turbofan. (am disputing bold text)

To my knowledge, the F101 itself was an afterburning turbofan (probably GE's first such engine), hence the "F" designation rather than "J". GE probably have modified the existing fan on the -102, but I believe the earlier models had bypass fans also. I will be checking my sources on this. - BillCJ 15:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  • GE's web site says the F101 was their first turbofan with an augmentor (afterburner). [4] But that makes it look like the engine had that before the -102 version. -Fnlayson 17:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I removed the 'GE's first afterburning turbofan' part. I moved it to the F101 article for the original engine with a ref. That's a more fitting location, I think. -Fnlayson 03:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I found a source that states the B-B's F101-102 engine is virtually identical to the B-1As F101-100, so I will remove statements regarding the fan change. - BillCJ 04:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Low level performance?

One thing that struck me while editing is the apparent "poor" low-level performance of the original B-1A. By the time this project really got rolling in the 1970s, the high-low-low mission profile was well entrenched. So if the 0.85M low dash speed for the B-1A is accurate, that seems astonishingly poor -- if I'm not mistaken, this is about the same speed as the B-52. High-speed high-altitude dash, even over long distances, seems like an almost useless feature. Yes, it's certainly possible to outdistance fighters (which is why I mentioned it), but to do so in the B-1A you'd have to put yourself right into the view of every SAM out there. It seems the only real argument for the B-1A over the B-52x was airframe lifetime. I realize that the B-1B redesign changes this comparison a fair amount, but that was much later. At the time, in the 1970s, how did they even make the argument for buying this thing? Maury 13:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The B-52's max speed (650 mph) is most likely not at low altitude (~200 ft) like the B-1A's 0.85 Mach. The B-1A surely had a smaller radar signature, although they may not have been as interested in that in the 1970s. Other than that, yea the need seems marginal. There's a couple paragraphs on the arguement over its need in the B-1A section. Maybe someone else can provide more insight on this. -Fnlayson 04:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Mach 0.85-0.95 (~700 mph) at low altitude is not too far off some faster fighter jets, such as the F-15 at Mach 1.2 (900 mph) and MiG-33 at Mach ~1.2 (932 mph) at low altitude. The top speeds are readily available while their low altitude speeds are just the opposite. -Fnlayson 01:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Gulf War 1991

Is it true that it was not used in that war because it has poor reliability (60% mission-ready)?--Arado 10:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

At that time, the B-1Bs were only configured for strategic missions. This is covered in the article. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been suggested that there was more than a little politicking going on to ensure this was the case. I heard this from a buff pilot though, so the comment itself might have been a little politicking as well. Maury 23:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality tag for History section

A user has placed a neutrality tag on the History section. The section seems fairly neutral to me. It points out the B-1's shortcomings compared to the B-52. The section is negative tilt to it more than anything. What do you think? -Fnlayson 01:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

He's changed it to a "weasel word" tag. I'm for removing it, and asking him to state his problems in detail here. - BillCJ 01:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
THe user has pulled the tag. - BillCJ 03:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I put that tag there because I felt that section of the article was not neutral, but someone's biased opinion. However I say; that while it may have it's short-comings, but it's still a superb aircraft. And keep in mind; that the B-52 isn't perfect either. - RaptorR3d 10:31, 23 February 2007.

Another major edit

Fnlayson dropped me an e-mail mentioning I hadn't added my refs when I made the last series of edits, which was something of a surprise to me. When I started adding them I realized the entire section simply didn't read well. I think the NPOV tag wasn't so much for the material, but due to the fact that the material seemed to be suggesting the B-1 was a heap, which was not my intention at all. I have extensively re-written this entire section to make it clear the debate was about bombers, not this bomber. I hope it's clearer now, but in any event it's extensively refed. Maury 13:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Found a source of B-1 history in the late 1970s and early 1980s on AF Magazine online. See A Tale of Two Bombers. It seems familar, maybe I came across it before. -Fnlayson 01:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a very interesting reference. In it we have Brown's opinion that Carter did not cancel the B-1 because of ATB, but because he was opposed to the arms buildup in general. That is different enough from the way I have written the current draft that I think it needs to be mentioned. Further it mentions that the ATB was made public by Brown before Reagan took office, which is different than what I had been led to believe. The debate between Brown and Reagan is, IMHO, particularly juicy, and I think it would flesh out the discussion of just how controversial this system was. I particularly liked the quote "the opposition was intense, almost fanatic". Even with what I consider to be a pro-B-1, pro-conservative bent to the article, it's nevertheless filled with great material Edits are required, I'll be looking over this for the next few days. Maury 13:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • So I take it, that you're not too fond of the B-1? - RaptorR3d, 02:28, 28 February 2007.
I really don't understand how you come to that conclusion based on the statements you are replying to. In fact, I think it is one of the most beautiful aircraft ever built. But who cares what I think? Maury 20:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Apparently I misunderstood your previous statement; my apologies. - RaptorR3d, 03:32, 28 February 2007.
No offense taken! Maury 21:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's another article on the B-1: Bad to the B-One It has some nice pictures in it. -Fnlayson 00:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Good work Maury. Wow, this plane has more history and background than the other aircraft articles I watch. -Fnlayson 02:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but is it TOO much? The thing that I do think is important is that this project was extremely debated, more so than the nuclear bomb I'd wager. That says a lot. In fact, I'm guessing there's few other military programs that have been cancelled three times and still came back to life. That's a story worth telling IMHO, but is it worth two pages? Maury 20:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Just pointing out a mistake in the performance. The top speed "at altitude" and at "low level" is listed in units of both Mach and mph. First off, it would be nice to know what these altitudes are and secondly there is no way that Mach 1.25 is 950mph at any altitude besides sea level. The speed of sound at sea level is 761.2mph and Mach 1.25 at sea level is approximately 950mph. At any other higher altitude it will be smaller. The same goes for the conversion from Mach to mph at "low level".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlovering (talk • contribs)

Recent edits

BillCJ, I've made those edits because they serve a valid purpose and link to other related information. The edits at the top were my bad (I got caught up in doing something else and forgot to fix that). Just deleting links because you don't like them is not a good reason IMHO. Claiming that all you did was "productive edits" and "[n]o references were deleted at all!" is ridiculous. You deleted 2 links which are good references for anyone doing research on this aircraft. In addition, and quite frankly getting petty, please learn the difference between "no" and "know." It makes your sentences MUCH easier to read (took me 3 minutes to get what you were trying to say). BQZip01 20:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. No harm intended.
One, "no" and "know" in my response were simple typing mistkes. I edit myself, and, when in a hurry, I often use the wrong word, and forget to proof it. I assure you, I do noknow (there, I did it again; argh!) the difference.
Two, those are "links", not "references" per se; picky, but I had no idea what you were referring to, as I was looking for actual footnotes ot the like. Thank you for being specific on the last edit; I do wish you had listed those in your first post on my page.
Third, I called the reversion "odd" because I genuinely thought you made a editing error, and maybe mixed me up with another editor. Again, the word "references" was what through, er threw me.
Fourth, if your refering at all to my deleting the in-text notes in the aircontent template (because you put them back), in practice, we (other [[WP:AIR editors) almost always deltete those. THe ones we usually leave in place are in the ones in the Specs template, as it's really important to get those right. Thats' just a clean-up thing I do, it doesn't mater to me either way if they are there.
Now, to the actual "references":

I removed the "Boeing 2707" link because, as the text note state, From which older designs was this plane developed, and what planes did it lead to?. The two designs are not directly-related in development, as they are not by the same companies. (I did check the text to see if there was some cross-ver, but it's not metioned if there is adirect connection. The usual place for a link like that is under the "see also" filed in that template (thanks for keeping it after I added it). Consversely, I have added the Northrop YB-49 under related development on the B-2 Spirit page. (I was adding the related contents section there, and copied it from the B-i page; made the edits while I was there.) It is widley-published that the B-2 made use of much of the Northrop flying wing research in designing the B-2. It could also go under "see also" if someone wants to dispute this.

Finally, the Military portal: I did look at the protal, and it seemed to be a generic portal, not one related to the B-1. We don't usually put these on most of the other aircraft articles. I assumed some newbie who did not know better had added it, and took it down. THis is not the USAF page, so I really don't think it's relevant here. One or two pages are not worth the quibble, but it doesn't need to be on the page of every aircraft which serves in the USAF. THat might be considered biased by some, as if were promoting the Air Force itself (which I would love to do personally), but is just not encyclopedic to do on every article.
Again, just a quibble. Had I known which specific edits you meant, I would have discussed them before making a mass revert. YOu've admitted the upper page edits were a mistake, but it did contribute to my confusion as to what was at steak here. (Yes, it's "stake"; just some editing humor to try to lighten the mood.)
I hope this settles the issue. If not, I'll be happy to further qlarify. THanks. - BillCJ 21:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
"quibble"...there's a word that'll single you out as being air force in a heartbeat...I think if you read the entire 2707 article, you'll notice there were several versions proposed for the 2707 including at least 2 that had a swing-wing design and one that had canards. Their designs were part of a government project and, thus, publicly accessible. I think you can concede they look a LOT like the B-1 and many of their obstacles they overcame in testing were later used in B-1 solutions.
BTW, I can appreciate (and dish out) good natured ribbing...just to "qlarify." BQZip01 03:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
See, I tried to tell you my typing was bad! As to "qlarify", I'm just getting ready in case we ever have to learn Arabic. Oh, I saw on SR-71 Blackbird that you're getting the hang of using those adjectives in edit summaries; and yes, it was very "pointless"! Btw, I've never been in the Air Force, or any Armed service; I'm just a fan of aviation, militry in particular, tho I do strongly support them and their missions.
As to the 2707, I can totally see your point too; I hope you get mine. If you can find a published source that describes or comments on the similarity, it would fit well in the development section. I might not be the only editor to comment on it, and it might stave off any further gwuestions. Thanks for understanding; I think this is about the strangest "edit conflict" I've ever been involved with! A little confusion can go a long way. - BillCJ 04:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Fnlayson, don't know (or "no" depending on the typist...sorry BillCJ, couldn't resist :-) ) why I didn't think of that sooner. IMHO it absolutely belongs in there.
      • I actually though of adding it last night when I removed the 2707 reference, but I didn't because I was unsure of the actual relationship. If we have a source that claims it, then I'm all for it. As an example, the F-4 is related to the F3H, but the F-15 is not a direct progression from the F-4.
BillCJ, amazing that you use the word "quibble." I have never heard it used outside of the USAF in common speech. Maybe you picked it up from one of your AF buddies somewhere. Here is a quick sample of what I found on my first search of google using "2707 B-1 swing"

Armaments & START treaty?

The Specifications section currently lists this:

Armament

  • Locations:
    • 6 external hardpoints for an additional 59,000 lb (27,000 kg) of ordnance (use for weapons currently restricted by START I treaty)

It seems to say all ordnance is restricted. The Start treaty only restricts nuclear weapons, right? I don't think the B-1 is nuclear capable any more or not readily. If so, I beleive that part can be removed. -Fnlayson 03:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think START was broader than that. For instance I seem to recall that one of these treaties (maybe START) also led to the ending of plans to have the B-52 carry anti-shipping missiles because the Soviets thought that it was too destabilizing. Likewise, the Soviets had to remove the in-air refueling from their Backfires so they would be limited to the North Atlantic and did not pose a strategic threat to CONUS. It doesn't strike me as entirely unreasonable that the Soviets would demand the removal of externals in order to reduce the total number of cruise's they would face during one of these treaties. All this is purely conjecture, but it seems to pass a smell test. Maury 03:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


Those hardpoints have been welded over so they can't be used at all. It should be noted that the B-52's external hardpoints also can't be used because of the START treaty.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Headrattle (talk • contribs).

Recent edit by Mozt

Mozt recently edited the intro into the AMSA part. Although I'm happy to shorten it, it seems rather odd as-is. The B-58 obviously has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and the description of the interception times didn't seem too off topic. Am I being too touchy? Maury 21:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The B-58 sentence does seems out of place there. The B-70 and B-1 were to be more than just "replacements" for the B-52 as it says now. Some of the time and distances were good. I'm not sure that much detail on the B-70 was needed, but that did set-up things. All in all bringing some of your text back does seem in order. -Fnlayson 00:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks good. I read that backwards about the B-70 and interceptors. It's clearer now. I need to add the B-70 details to the XB-70 article. It is lacking in background and development. -Fnlayson 01:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, cool. That's an article that could be one of the greats, I'm glad to see you're taking it on! Maury 01:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I added a couple paragraphs to it and cleaned up some things. They are trying to put the XB-70 up for Good Article (GA) and now Featured Article (FA). It's lacks a lot of B-70 details to make GA, imo. -Fnlayson 18:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Three engine flight dangerous?

In the recent incident where a B-1B was forced to land in Kandahar, articles said that three engine flight was "dicey" Why? I would have thought that with four engines flying on three engines would be trivial. Norm Donovan 18:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The cited source, http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htcbtsp/articles/20071031.aspx, doesn't have much info at all on the why's of it being difficult. There may be another source out there with some better details. I agree with Fnlayson (Jeff) that the major factor is the asymmetrical thrust of 2 vs. one engine, and not having planned for take-offs and long flights on only 3 engines. - BillCJ 19:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the whole idea behind having four engines was to provide a increased reliability in the case of an engine failure. I *thought* that a four engine plane is designed so that if it suffers an engine failure on takeoff (the worse case) it can still get airborne and that it used to be that the civil air authorities would not certify planes for long overwater flights unless they has three or four engines. Following up on this if a four engine B1 could lift itself with a full bomb load with only three engines (assuming a failure) why could it not take off and fly with only three engines with no bomb load. Perhaps the B1 cannot survive the loss of an engine on take-off, but that sounds scary. I assume no matter how well engines are cared for they fail sometimes and a multi-million dollar aircraft should be able to survive such a failure. Perhaps I don't understand the situation. Norm Donovan 18:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Reading the links posted above I get the impression that while flying the plane is possible on 3 engines the issue is the risk of someone shooting at it, or it needing to make an emergency landing in a politically sensitive area - both exaggerated if one engine is out of action already. Also, they do cost $283 million dollars and hopefully US taxpayers are keen not to take unnecessary risks with them ;0 The Land 19:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Concur with The Land. The Bomber rescue article definitely brings that out. It's a good piece btw, so thanks to Jeff (Fnlayson) for findint it! - BillCJ 20:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The 1 engine out scenero is for flight and landing. Basically limp back to land and get it fixed. You wouldn't normally ask an aircraft to takeoff and fly in that condition. Another engine could possibly fail. I think the Bone specifics have been covered above. -Fnlayson 05:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wingweb.co.uk

I run a site titled Air Vectors that covers military aircraft and gets cited here and there on Wikipedia. I don't normally touch wikipedia articles other than to correct typos and the like, but I just found out about a site named "Wingweb.co.uk" which is also cited here and there on Wikipedia (for example in this article) ... but whose aviation articles are largely or entirely downloads of Air Vectors articles -- advertized as "original content & images" though they also lifted many of my photos and artwork.

I have no fuss to make. I just want to make sure the Wikipedia community knows that Wingweb.co.uk is a ripoff operation. Cheers / MrG 4.225.208.126 02:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur. LanceBarber 06:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

B-1R Ref improve

This section needs a little bit more referencing, particularly in the paragraph starting "Other changes in the nature..." which passes off a lot interpreted information without sourcing it. Darthveda (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • It would have been better to add a fact tag to each paragraph that lacks references. I'll see what I can do... -Fnlayson (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs on the B-2 & B-52 and the Other changes/missiles para you mention should just be removed. They are not really related to the B-1R that I can tell. I removed both paragraphs. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Alert start

I made a minor change on the "Alert Start" button, because it didn't start the engines, it just started the APUs and got the plane ready for engine start. The way it worked was the first flight crew member to get to the nose gear hit the button, and by the time all four were in their seats, the plane was ready for engine start. There was no mention ever of it starting engines, because that was just begging for massive FOD issues. Even in a hurry, the crew was carrying cases with various mission paperwork, (this was the 80s remember), flight tapes, IFF mode 4 tools, etc. You also had to be able to remove the main gear chocks, the static ground lines, the hydro fluid drain lines, (B-1Bs leaked hydro fluid constantly. They hydro guys had specs for what was an acceptable limit.), et al. Doing all that with engines running was unacceptably dangerous. No point in a quick start if you FOD them out. Once the crew was inside, and the hatch sealed, then the engine start and launch would procede.Johncwelch (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

List of B-1s

While there are exceptions, in general, Wiki aircraft articles do not have or need a list of all the aircraft built. Even with sources, things such as nicknames (usually assigned by pilots or ground crew) are arbitrary and even harder to verify. In addition, they tend to be very long, and this article is long enough already. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a collection of lists, so placing this info in its own article is probably not a good idea, especially without sources. THe best thins to do would be to link to an existing website that already has a list of the aircraft, placing the link in External links, provided the page is not a forum or linkspam. Thanks. - BillCJ 22:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Other articles have their Gallery and Survivors (epilogue is similar) sections near the bottom of the article. These sections seem a bit out of place where they are in the article now. What about moving them down below the Specs or so? -Fnlayson 23:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I was thinking the same, too...but, I thought since the Wings Museum was discussed in the previous paragraph and the first pic of No.3 was also there. I merged the first pic with the new ones and inserted gallery. Since this gallergy was of the B-1A, in relation to its program cancellation, it follows the section topic. Having it at the bottom, would be out of context for the entire article.... UNLESS, we create two galleries, one of the A-model, and another of the B-model, back to back at the bottom of the article. I would be glad to perform the A gallery move, and create a same size B gallery, both at bottom. Thoughts? , Lance (LanceBarber 04:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC))
  • Moving that is not that big of a deal to me. Just thought I'd ask. If they were moved, I was thinking of keeping the Epilogue/Survivors near the B-1A gallery. I like the B-1B images where they are, at least most of them. -Fnlayson 04:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
A thought, I have some B-1B shots at Edwards, not as many as the Museum, upload them for a "B-1B walk around gallery" and add few from the Commons to make it equal size at the B-1A gallery, and both afters the a/c specs section...?? LanceBarber 05:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Added info about the 1989 nosegear-up landing at Edwards. I watched it live, but referenced back to http://www.targetlock.org.uk/b-1/service-part1.htmlJohncwelch (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Cockpit layout changes?

I might be imagining this, but when I compare the B-1A nose profile with the B-1B "action shots", it seems the later has a larger cockpit area with a much flatter profile. I seem to recall some discussion of the ECM upgrades requiring a "spine" on the B-1A (which was not fitted due to cancellation) and I'm wondering if this change is related? If so, I think it deserves some mention in the area where the ECM upgrades are being discussed. Maury 12:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well do you see what I mean about the profile? I may be completely imagining it, so I'd like to be sure of that before discussing why it may or may not exist!
Look at the RIAT picture for instance, the top of the cockpit section is decidedly "flat". It might be a trick of the light, but the image directly above it also shows an identical "flat" top. The B-1A, on the other hand, seems much rounder on top, and appears to start to streamline down to the fuselage contour earlier. Compare with this image for instance.
One difference appears to be the location of the rearmost ejection seats. Compare the outline of the ejection module on the B-1A image we have here with the outline of the seats on the top of the RIAT image. It appears they are much further to the rear. Maury 16:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am imagining it. There is a profile difference, but it's due to the merging of the ECM spine into the fuselage. That is unlikely to have changed the cockpit area, which otherwise looks very similar. A little taller in the back, but that's it. Maury 02:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'v added some images from Wikimages.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.130.247.134 (talk) 08:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the "spine" people are talking about was, IIRC, on ship 3 only, (one of the B-1A test birds) and it was for testing specific ECM gear. That gear was, to my knowledge, never integrated into the B-1B production models, at least not when I was working on the ALQ-161s at GFAFB, 1987-1993.Johncwelch (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

B-1R image

This image is included mainly to show the external ordnance and other external hardware. The external hardpoints are restricted from use on the B-1B. So there's no similar B-1B images available. The aircraft does look out of proportion in that angle. I don't think that's a bit deal though with all the other B-1 images in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The question is what constitutes an image. First, no picture exists because no aircraft exists or likely will ever. You are left with either no image or an incorrect image. Since this is merely a pipe dream at this point and is highly unlikely to go anywhere, I'd say the standard is pretty high. It would be nice to have an image, but this isn't a picture, it's an illustrantion and, frankly, it's a joke. Beyond showing 'stuff' below the airplane, it doesn't do anything. As a Bone mechanic, I can tell you that you cannot do what it shows with this aircraft. There are bombs in the way of landing gear and sensors and mounted where there is no structural support for such racks. You CAN put weapons externally, but not there! My basic points are, therefore, that the picture is poor quality, does not illustrate anything that is possible in reality, and is unnecessary due to the obscurity of the proposal and unlikelyhood it will come to fruition. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, if the hardpoints are not located on each side of the bombbays, where abouts are they? I've not come across a picture or figure that shows this detail. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
That's the crux of the problem. Look here: [5] You see that the landing gear take up a considerable area from the centerline to the nacelles. Now, look at this picture: [6] You can see here that the only area to put ANY hardpoint underneath the Aircraft is either taken up or it's in front of the intake. Yeah, major problem with putting bombs ANYWHERE in front of the intake (or horizontal stab for that matter) is that bombs, missiles, drop tanks, chaff, and flares don't always fall the way you want them to. Yeah, then there's that whole airflow thing. Look here: [7]. At any rate, when the whole B-1R thing came out, those of us "in the know" had a real laugh. Absurd was a word that came to mind. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Having actually seen a B-1B with the hardpoints in use, (Ship 9 I *think*, during a remarkably boring TDY at Edwards), the hardpoints were just to the outside of the weapons bay doors. From my time with the B-1B, (Minor trivia: it was the Ellsworth guys who started up with that "bone" stuff, and it stuck. At Grand Forks, we either called it "The B-1" or "that fucking pig". But never bone, and certainly never "Lancer".), Ship 9 was the only B-1 in the fleet to ever use the external hardpoints and that was for START verification, (i.e. what would radar sigs look like with ALCMS/SRAMS/ACMs attached). In addition to Asam's good point about the engine damage risks, even ACMs mounted externally just killed the Radar Signature of the plane. Considering the B-1B's rather cavernous internal bay capacity, my understanding about the hardpoints was that they were never worth the effort.Johncwelch (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong plane

The three-view drawing is of a B-1A, not a B-1B. There probably isn't a good B-1B three-view available, however it looks a little cheesy with the old plane there. I thought we voted Carter out of office!? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The line drawing is too course for me to tell much difference. Looks like B-1A intakes with original pointy nose and tailcone. Close enough.. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Two dead giveaways are the ejection pod outline in the nose and the extended spine. Yeah, close enough for the layman, but still incorrect. How many could tell the difference between the B-15 and B-17? B-19? OOOhhhh, OOOHHHH. I CAN!!! --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Fnl. After all, a B-1A is still a B-1, and the 3-view is there to give a basic idea on the plane's overall planform - that hasn't changed. - BillCJ (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Valkyrie section

The reason that the Valkyrie section is important is because some bad guesses were made about the future capabilities of SAMs, which pushed the B1 program towards low level penetration, which is why overflight/SAM intercepts are directly relevant. Valkyrie was killed off partly as a result of these guesses. If you work out the numbers with the technology of the time then your SAMs needed to be nuclear tipped, and would need a surprising density of launchers and radar, to attack a M3 bomber, and you probably don't want them too near the bomber's target since a misfire would do the bomber's job. These devices would be more complex than ICBMs. The B1 is swing wing because it is a low level penetrator, it is a low level penetrator because it was incorrectly thought that SAMs would hit high altitude fast movers. SR 71 subsequently proved that wrong. What is controversial or irrelevant about that, in terms of the history of the B1? Did you think they just decided that swing wings were cool so they used them? Greg Locock (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, after the Powers' U-2 downing the US promised no manned overflights of the Soviet Union. So the SR-71 did not face the best SAMs. Mentioning the SR-71 record in this article is going off on a tangent, imo. The SR-71 and maybe B-70 articles are better places. Other B-70 details can be removed too since they are covered in that article now. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually the US did plan on using the SR-71 on flights down the Kola, but the USAF declined, citing bad weather and low sun angles (in spite of the fact that neither of these were cited as problems when the program was first set up!). Overflights of either the USSR or China were both considered far too risky for basic recce missions. And while it is true that the S-75 of 1960 had limited capability against the SR-71, or B-70, the same is absolutely not the case for the V-750SM's that were deployed specifically to address this problem. Even with the limited capability of the missiles available in the early 1960s, it was clear that it improvements to the missiles were much less expensive and time consuming than the improvements to the aircraft needed to defeat them. Newer systems like Gammon had ample capability against either of these aircraft, for instance.
The reference in question is from a popular book that makes numerous questionable claims. For instance, it states that there were 4,000 shots against the SR-71. Total SA-2 production, by FAR the most common SAM, is estimated at 4,600 (see S-75 Dvina). Furthermore it claims that of these "4,000" shots, none hit the aircraft. This is simply not the case. It is well recorded that an OXCART mission over Vietnam was hit by fragments from an SA-2 on 30 October 1967. (see the CIA official history, The OXCART Story). And those were the export versions, lacking the upgraded radars of the SM's that were being deployed in the USSR.
This is all besides the point anyway. That the USAF changed from high-altitude to low-altitude penetration due to the introduction of SAMs is an obvious and unarguable statement of fact. If you have any references to the contrary, feel free to post them. The rest of your post is just your opinion, expansion ad absurdum, and outright supposition. This is fine on the discussion page, but not worthy of entry in the article. Further re-inserts without MUCH better referencing detailed here on the talk prior to the insert will border on edit warring, and you're already two strikes down on 3RR.
Maury (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The reference in question is from an interview with a SR71 pilot, actually. I agree the 4000 claim is ridiculous, it would include every shot fired in its general direction, but that is what the witness said. Your latest edit is acceptable but needs a cite for the main claim, it is not obvious in retrospect that the USSR could afford to build a defence netwerk of almost-ICBMS and then hand local control of the warheads over to the operators permanently. The maths of the command loop timing prevents central control of the response. The reason I reverted "Although Soviet missiles of the era may not catch the B-70, it was clear that they would in time" is that it is very poorly phrased and can be taken to mean the exact opposite of its intended reading.Greg Locock (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
There, that is how you go about getting changes made in a situation like this. You're absolutely correct, the sentence in question is terrible and I will fix immediately. Maury (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Wait, it was already fixed. See, even easier! Maury (talk) 11:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd not add it to the article, because the only "source" was a conversation I had with a Rockwell engineer, but the hydro system on the B-1B and much of the original test equipment came fairly directly out of the XB-70 program. Unfortunately, Edwards, and Rockwell frowned on recording such conversations, and since it happened in the late 80s, it was a bit hard to get it onto Wikipedia then :-)Johncwelch (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The Valkyrie section needs a cleanup to deal with ant-aircraft weapons and such. Hcobb (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this section necessary at all really? Can't it pretty much be reduced to something like "Due to the rapid pace of SAM improvement the US shifted its strategy of High Altitude, High speed bombers, which were designed with avoiding interceptor aircraft in mind, to one involving low altitude flight. Going into details about the XB-70 and U-2 including engine count etc seems way to involved and its not the only jet that fell prey to this shift in strategy (example: B-58).
I guess what I'm saying is that when we boil it down to an enclopedia entry I think we care more about the shift in strategy and it leading to the project then the history of bombing since world war II.
Bringing up the B-58 its article (which needs a ton of clean-up including this snipit) says
"It was during its introduction that the surface-to-air missile (SAM) became a viable and dangerous weapon system, especially systems like the SA-2 Guideline, a SAM system the Soviet Union extensively deployed. The "solution" to this problem was to fly at low altitudes, minimizing the radar line-of-sight and thus minimizing exposure time."
Which even though is poorly worded as I stated, gives a much more clear concise description of the start of affairs during that time.
Be Bold In Edits (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The pre-Design studies text can and probably should be cut down a lot. I would not go as far as I believe you are suggesting though. The Valkyrie and Redefined role sections could be combined and cut in half, I think. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Missing combat loss

According to this Wikipedia page - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_combat_losses_of_United_States_military_aircraft_since_the_Vietnam_War

a B1 was shot down in Afghanistan.

This should be added here. 109.144.29.220 (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot cite itself, so we need a reliable published source for the claim. There is a cited source in that article for the claim, but it's behind a paywall. Since I can't verify the claim, I won't add it. It does seem odd that an event that supposedly happened over 20 years ago is already the article, and I certainly don't remember hearing about it in 2001. BilCat (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rockwell_B-1_Lancer/Archive_1&oldid=1218060707"