Talk:Rockwell B-1 Lancer/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

V-tail

This video shows the B-1R as having a V-tail. Did Rockwell or the USAF announce anything about this? If so, it should be mentioned in the article. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The B-1R was a recent proposed upgrade from Boeing. There was nothing in the Boeing article in reference 57 or the other sources I've seen about changing from a single tail. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Kiss the Bone goodbye

Is the recent buzz about retiring the fleet at the point where it deserves mention? Hcobb (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No, just talk at this point. When the AF actually decides to retire the fleet or some of them. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be today then: [1] Hcobb (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• That only says the Air Force was/is considering retiring the B-1B fleet, among other options. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• We should certainly mention that it is under consideration. That is being widely reported and can be well sourced. JMG (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Not that widely reported. There has no articles on this from Aviation Week, Flight International/Global, Defense Daily or Defense News or AirForces Monthly this past week. But maybe I missed one. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Implementation of WP:RS

The terms and purpose of WP:RS is clear, to define articles that are and are not reliable, and to ensure that reliable sources are used. The entire point of references is to verify a statement, however if the cited source isn't reliable, it is effectively little more than a chocolate teapot, worthless at its own function of verification as it isn't verifiably right. I have tried to pull out several of these sources, which are to put it bluntly, worthless (as we can't tell if they're falsified, innocently mistaken, or actually correct); one such objection was that sources should be replaced rather than removed. I'll do my best to replace these references as and when I have the time, I had already begun searching as a matter of fact, but I prefer to have my head facing in one direction rather than bolting back between two different courses of action, sifting out bad references and citing statements without citations, as it only slows me down more and makes it easier for me to miss something in the clean up. I'd prefer to perform a clean sweap and implimention of WP:RS and remove all non-RS sources while I crack into the books over the coming weeks and familiarise myself more with the wording and desired info across the article. Is there a good reason that references that are by definition useless as references, should be being re-added to the article? It is basically falsifying the verifiability, and therefore integrity, of this article by contining to exist after they have been idenfitied; unless I am mistaken and some are in fact good references, that should be demonstrated below on this talk page if that is the case. Kyteto (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of all the above fooferall, David Hastings' site: TargetLock has extensive reference sources listed, is non-commercial and not to be summarily dismissed without checking the source itself. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC).

It is a gross assumption to suggest it was "Summarily dismissed" or "Without checking". It was dismissed in line with the terms laid out by WP:RS.

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight" Does this site have good editorial oversight? Does it have any at all? If the answer is no, it clearly fails the terms set out by WP:RS. Brand it as fooferall, it is the terms we all operate by when referencing. Personal feelings do not get in the way of judgements, especially when the principles are clearly layed out, such as in the discription of the initial edit.

"Self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." Self-published media such as personal websites are largely not accepted, even if references are extensive, it is an exception to have them rather than normal practice, why should an exception be made here? Note that Joe Bawer and Vectorsite are been identified multiple times as inappropriate for referencing, despite their bibliographies they aren't specific enough on their statements, the same logic would almost certainly apply here to a very similar website.

I would ask you to familiarise yourself with the terms of this Policy article. I'm also a little shaken at being accused of acting "without checking", as I find that a little offensive, and somewhat ironic, you did not stop to question or inspect how I had made my detirmination, instead attacking it with complete ignorance to any details regarding its conduct or methodology, in much the same fashion you accused me of performing this judgement. Both policy and multiple pages of the site were checked, consuming no minisule amount of time, on my initial inspection.Kyteto (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It is also worth having a read of WP: Source:

"Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field"

It is considered quite exceptional, and generally discouraged, for self published sources to be used in articles if the self-publisher is himself not an independently publishing expert, and is usually only lifted for situations where the article is about the person or website themselves.

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material"

I shall take it that you shall set about proving its validity as a source, as it shouldn't be my job to disprove it so extensively to convince you that my investigation has merit. Kyteto (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Knock off the wikilawyering and take a look at the source, it clearly states a connection to the published AIB report, linked in the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC).

That's enough long winded posts. Suggest we focus on replacing questionable references with better ones. -fnlayson (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, let's get back to knitting... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC).

Agreed then. I did check the paragraph for the event in question, but I do not see the (linked?) AIB report for the incident it is being cited for. The paragraph below, which was on a seperate incident, did have a report listed at the end, which makes no mention of the facts of this incident. I shall now search for alternative sources for the information required. Kyteto (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right and I will move the cite to the appropriate location. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for misdirecting this discussion as it was the wrong incident being described, I have altered both statements aligning them with reference sources/citations. FWiW, while I agree that many sites do not fall readily into the WP:RS realm, there is a case to be made for others. Bzuk (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Following the success of refits and sourcing, I believe that this article is approaching GA-quality. It is my intention to submit this article at GAN for review; pending any adjustments or requirements other editors feel are necessary. Kyteto (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. Looks like most everything is referenced now. -fnlayson (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the reference to the '89 nose-down "landing" at edwards was removed when the accidents section was reformatted. Was there a specific reason for this, or it just got left out? (I did manage to find a decent link about it, since I assumed "I was on duty that night watching it happen" might not meet the standards for a proper reference.) Thanks, john Johncwelch (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Origin of B-1B landing fire picture

There has been some contention of what the picture located in the 'Other notable accidents and incidents' is showing, with the primary caption being that it is from the 2005 Guam landing fire. This is not correct.

As you can see in the picture, the wings are fully swept aft (which was not a causal factor in the Guam mishap) and the crew ladder is down, meaning this picture was not taken on rollout, but after the aircraft had already come to a stop.

Now, I could point out that I was actually a pilot in the 9th Bomb Squadron at the time of incident in Rhein Mein AB in 1994, and was fully briefed by the crew themselves post incident...however, that doesn't carry a whole lot of weight on the internet, so here are some references to the said incident:

Target Lock article.

"Four B-1s from the 9th BS deployed to RAF Fairford on June 1st 1994 to participate in the NATO exercise Central Enterprise. The B-1 deployment was called Coronet Pluto '94 and involved more than 250 people from Dyess AFB.

During the exercise work-up phase, the Lancer crews spent time familiarising themselves with ATC procedures in European airspace. Dummy 227 kg bombs were released over the Vlievors range in Holland, and fighter intercepts were experienced over the North Sea. They also took time to work up with their co-penetrators in Central Enterprise, 48th FW F-15Es and 27th FW F-111Fs.

Two of the aircraft, 84-0057 Hellion and 86-0103 The Reluctant Dragon took part in ceremonies commemorating the 50th anniversary of D-Day on June 6th 1994. Hellion was scheduled to take part in a 50-aircraft flypast of Omaha Beach, but this was prevented by bad weather. The flypast of the US services' cemetery at Colville-sur-Mer by The Reluctant Dragon went as planned.

Central Enterprise ran from 13th to 17th June, with the B-1s active every day. During the exercise Hellion was forced to divert to Rhein-Main AB in Germany with a wingsweep malfunction."

A better reference:

7th Bombardment Group/Wing, 1918-1995 by Robert F. Dorr.

Page 224 and 225 spells out the specific incident, including how the right main gear caught fire 20 minutes later, but was put out quickly. This picture came out soon after the incident and is very old. The only problem with the article is that it says they taxied in, which is not correct...they egressed on the runway and let the brakes cook (so that any potential damage wouldn't spread to other aircraft nearby). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.250.9 (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I could not find any info on the B-1B program page where the image came from (archive copy). -fnlayson (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the above, why is this image even being used in the article? It doesn't illustrate any of the selected incidents/accidents, and seems to be causing more confusion than it's helping.76.222.59.222 (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Section: Design, Subsection: Upgrades

"Despite upgrades, the B-1 has repair and cost issues resulting from its age. For every flight hour it needs 48.4 hours of repair."

Does this mean 48.4 man-hours, or 48.4 hours on the ground ? Darkman101 (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you check the reference for that? It just says "48.4 hours in the repair shop" for every flight hour. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

“The B-1's defensive electronics include the Eaton AN/ALQ-161A radar warning and defensive jamming equipment,[64] has three antennae; one at the front base of each wing and the third rear-facing in the tail radome.[88]” I used to work on the B1B and I know for a fact that there are more then three antennae. There are three main sectors for the antennae, but each sector has over a dozen antennae each. I can’t get a source for this other then Jane’s which implies that there are more then three antennae. Here is the link http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Radar-and-Electronic-Warfare-Systems/AN-ALQ-161A-Electronic-CounterMeasures-ECM-system-United-States.html I will check back, and if no one else has corrected this, I will.Headrattle (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up and explaining. I double checked a couple of my books and one (Jenkins book) calls them 3 sets of antennas. The current Spick reference says phased array antennas in 3 locations, not exactly 1 per location. I just clarified the article text to say 3 sets of antennas. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The FIDL system is not yet implemented into the B-1B. The 2010 date was a guess by Boeing, but it is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.61.68 (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The text "The USAF is expected to place a contract to have FIDL installed in the entire fleet by the end of 2010." says a contract was expected in 2010. This needs to be updated, but it is not seriously wrong. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

A recent update of the section, by myself, was heavily altered/deleted by user "Kyteto". I would like to get your thoughts on this issue. It is my opinion that his overhaul was heavy handed, hence some of the important content was deleted. My intention is to re-instate some of this content... Ltr,ftw (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

SAC History has way too many errors

Overall a good article, but unfortunately the SAC era has many errors. Way too many references are biased/inaccurate newspaper articles or Public Affair releases. I know - I was there.

1. The B-1B was only on "limited" alert status during its IOC phase. Once FOC in late 1989, all main operating bases were pulling their full assigned SIOP alert lines. Declaring the B-52 the "mainstay" of the bomber alert force is not accurate unless one simply counts number of aircraft on alert at any given moment.

2. Not enough detail is given to the SAC days of operations or credit given to the initial cadre of B-1B flyers. ALL of them were selected at SAC HQ and came from the the FB-111 and B-52 (and some KC-135). 1984 to 1992 is when the B-1B matured into an operational combat capable aircraft, yet little is discussed. These were some of the most important years of the program. From the beginning of the CCTS to the re-org of 1992 we learned what to do - what NOT to do - and what could kill us. We were the first to deploy it and the first to develop the original tactics courses and original 3-1 manuals. We learned what truly worked on the jet, and what didn't. We learned the terrain following system (TF) both day and night. How to deal with weather limitations, and how to fly the thing with conventional weapons. We learned how to employ it in the environment it was designed for (nuclear operations) -- and proved it was the best nuclear bomber built up to that time. The bombing system was simply the best of its time and outperformed the B-52 systems consistently.

3. Please delete the reference to "airborne" alert -- there was no such thing in the 80's and 90's.

4. There were many, many temporary groundings during the SAC years. None but the winter 1991 incident is mentioned, and it has errors. The grounding lasted 50 some days - from the Dyess incident in December 90 to 7 Feb 1991. After that it was business as usual.

5. Any reference to the B-1B pulling nuclear alert during Desert Storm is accurate - but mention of the B-52H doing the same duty should also be made to put everything into perspective.

6. Interview some original aircrew from that era for references - they are out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacewo (talk • contribs) 15:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, we're not allowed to interview crew members and use their accounts directly. To ensure that information is correct and reasonably valid, it has to have been professionally published. This policy is designated WP:V, and WP:RS. Without sources that are verified and circulated, we would be going on the back of hear-say, possibly deliberately lying or false information being inserted into articles by people getting their rocks off in that way for some reason. Likewise, we can only mention the B-52's duty in Desert Storm if we have published material saying that to be the case. It is frustrating, but Verifiability comes over Truth. Kyteto (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Laser guided Bone

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2012/05/mil-120516-afns01.htm B-1 aircrews make history by employing laser JDAMS

Is this historic because it is the first test of a laser guided weapon in general from the Bone against a moving target, or is it just this particular weapon/platform combination? Hcobb (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Evolution of the supersonic intercontinental bomber

The B-1's history is incomplete without a brief look at the bombers which preceded it in evolutionary terms - the B-36 was the first bomber to set the standard of 6,000 mile range and a big payload. The B-52 replaced the Peacemaker with comparable range and payload but near-sonic speed. The B-58 introduced the Mach 2 bomber, and the F/FB-111 used swing-wings for low-level dash, but were medium range bombers. The B-1 essentially was a B-52 follow-on with F-111 performance, eventually reduced to M1.25 rather than M2 as the B-1B. The television program Great Planes not only includes these planes but goes back to the B-17. I've included the deleted sections here if some other editor can figure out how to include them. Lost in the edits were previous details of the B-58 and F-11 designs which were there for a long time. Also missing is that the initial design bore a strong resemblence to the Boeing 733 SST design.Redhanker (talk)

The B-1 is one of series of US strategic bombers with intercontinental range. The massive propeller powered B-36, which had a range greater than 9,700 km (6,000 mi) and a maximum payload of 33,000 kg (73,000 lb) was the world's first manned bomber with an unrefueled intercontinental range when introduced in 1949. The jet powered subsonic B-52 reached near sonic speeds with an unrefueled range of 7,000 mi . America's first supersonic bomber was the Convair B-58 Hustler which replaced the B-47 Stratojet medium bomber. First flown in 1956 and introduced into service in 1960, it was designed to overfly Soviet Union at high altitudes and Mach 2 speeds, but it was only a high performance complement to the B-52 with much less range.

The B-52 proved adaptable to the low-level penetration role, and its flexibility allowed it to outlast its intended successor as the nature of the air war environment changed. The change in tactics led the Air Force to design a supersonic aircraft optimized for low-level penetration leading to the supersonic F-111 fighter-bomber with variable-sweep wings. In June 1960 the Air Force released SOR 183 calling for a new aircraft dedicated to the low-level role using variable-sweep wings which were seen as a solution to meeting the needs of both low-speed and supersonic flight. This emerged in 1965 after the controversial TFX program as the FB-111A which had two afterburning turbofan engines. Although it was conceived as a successor to the F-105 Thunderchief tactical fighter, the strategic version produced a smaller and less expensive aircraft than the B-58 which offered roughly equal performance in strategic terms. Yet what the Air Force would eventually seek in the B-1 was a bomber with the supersonic and low-level performance of the F-111 but with sufficient range and payload to replace the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress

References

Why isn't Wikipedia picking up the internal link to the variable-sweep wing in the introduction section?

Why isn't the wikipedia picking up the link to the internal "variable-sweep wing" in the introduction section? I tried to fix it, but it looks like it is already correct. The page exists (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable-sweep_wing), but the link isn't being displayed..... 03:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)DAW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.158.33 (talk)

No idea what you are talking about. "Variable-sweep wing" has been linked in the Intro for some time. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Changing 2006 accident entry, cite is not an RS

The reference does not meet Reliable Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS) standards; - http://www.zianet.com/tedmorris/ - as you can see, is a private, non-peer reviewed website. I am sure Mr. Morris is sincere, and I find the page he has dedicated to the crash very interesting, but "letters to the editor" and non-official alternate theories about this crash cannot be verified and conflict with the official Air Force statement on the crash. Additionally, the original edit was incorrect about the AF report on the crash-nowhere does it state they removed any circuit breaker, etc., and there were multiple factors that contributed to the crash. HammerFilmFan (talk) 04:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The zianet.com ref only covers text about the B-1 returning to service now. Thanks a lot for your update. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

thanks, but the site still doesn't meet RS stds - I hate it, as sources for articles such as this (section) are often hard to come by HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Photo of the new battlestation

http://www.flickr.com/photos/usairforce/12189267143/in/set-72157640242159426

Can we use USAF photos posted to other sites like this? Hcobb (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)