Jump to content

Talk:Rockwell B-1 Lancer/Archive 3

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

Tu-160 Blackjack

Why no mention of the TU-160 Blackjack which was obviously inspired by if not an outright derivation of the B-1 design? It seems that for some reason, connections are often missing in WP articles between US designed aircraft and their soviet counterparts, unless it is an exact copy like the B-29. Redhanker (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, Tu-160 and B-1 have little in common except for appearance. They aren't even same weight class. B1's closest soviet counterpart is Tu-22, Tu-160s closest counterparts in USAF are B2's.
And I'm talking about their mission (intercontinental bomber vs strategec bomber). B2 and Tu-160 don't look alike, but that's because soviets and US people had different approach to problem of survivability.
B2 was relying on stealth and sacrificed everything other than stealth, Tu-160 relied on it's high terminal speed and 2500km+ (1350nmi) standoff missiles (kh-55) to get away from harms way or attack before enemy can even get interceptors into the air. Everytime I see B1 and Tu-160 Comparisons I want to throw up. 89.103.73.123 (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
The project for a new Soviet swing-wing supersonic heavy bomber, which resulted in the Tu-160, was instituted in 1972, two years after the Rockwell design was selected for the B-1 and in direct response to that programme. The Tu-160 weighs 20 tons more than the B-1, but then it's Russian and Russian copies of Western designs always weigh more. The Tu-22 is an older design, weighing about half as much as the Tu-160. Khamba Tendal (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. Tu-160 max take-off weight is 60 tons more than Bone. It is in absolutely different league. Yes, it was inspired by B1-A, but had rather different design proposals, and no, it is not a "copy". You don't name F-15 a copy of Foxbat, do you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.28.176.183 (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The difference in empty weight, my Muscovite IP comrade, is 23 tonnes. Blackjack's maximum take-off weight is about 60 tonnes higher than the B-1B's, mainly for geographical and political reasons -- the US has access to friendly bases all over the world and can carry out inflight refuelling across most of the world, whereas the Soviets pretty much had to operate from Russian territory, because everybody hated them (a factor that has not altered), and could not count on tanker support in airspace where Western fighters might be present, which means almost everywhere (a factor that similarly has not altered), so the Blackjack has monster engines with near double the power of the B-1's, enabling it to lift a greater fuel load. But in concept the Blackjack is a B-1 knockoff, just as the Tupolev Tu-144 was a Concorde knockoff -- although the Blackjack is a more successful knockoff in that it does basically work, which the Tu-144 never did. The F-15 does copy the Foxbat in overall layout, but is designed to be manoeuvrable, which the Foxbat isn't. The Foxbat is a pioneering design, intended to intercept supersonic high-altitude bombers that never materialised, whereas the F-15 copies its approach to attaining high speed, but is also intended to put right everything that was wrong with the Phantom and is thus far more flexible. Hope that answers your question. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b-1b/
    Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

List of B-1 units of the United States Air Force

Can someone please look at incorporating the table in the (orphan) list into this article? Or redirecting the list if thats appropriate Gbawden (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

CITS

Under the Upgrades section, the 5th paragraph talks about introducing a Central Integrated Test System in 2013. I was an avionics tech at Dyess in the early 90's and there was a CITS on board at the time, so this can't be accurate. In fact it was near impossible to troubleshoot anything electronic without the dang thing, since it was so tightly integrated into all the systems. It was also fun since the display was right above the ladder hatch, and since it was a royal pain to close we would frequently (despite QA rules) leave the hatch open and balance over a roughly 15 foot drop onto concrete with a phone book sized T.O. in our hands while using it. Perhaps they meant "introduced an upgraded CITS"? I don't have immediate access to the source, so i can't verify it, and I know my anecdote can't be used as a source, but perhaps someone can look into it? 2602:306:83BC:8CA0:0:0:0:3A (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

FIrst Soviet AWACS

"Studies suggested that the existing B-52 fleet with ALCM would remain a credible threat until 1985. It was predicted that 75% of the B-52 force would survive to attack its targets.[59] After this, the introduction of the SA-10 missile, the MiG-31 interceptor and the first Soviet Airborne Early Warning and Control (AWACS) systems would make the B-52 increasingly vulnerable.[60]"

Hmm. First Soviet AWACS produced in series was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-126 running since 1964. So either citation is wrong, or source is of low quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.28.176.183 (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Crash

Talking to a B-1 technician today, the veteran knew much about this aircraft. The person said that during low level flight they did have ha e a B-1 crash into terrain because of a malfunction in the airplane avionics. Like the advanced f111 aardvark, i understand the B-1 can do low altitude autopilot. Little is published about this equipment or capabilities. Yet what I was told is this autopilot malfunctioned and killed the crew when the plane did not maneuver correctly at low altitude. Thats what the tech told me. Why is this not mentioned in the list of crashes? Did someone want to blame a pilot when in fact it was equipment failure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B113:7679:65D5:7226:F372:A394 (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

You'll need to bring better sources than hearsay to the article. All of the crashes are referenced, I suggest that you review the citations to see if a minority opinion exists that supports the conversation you had. The malfunction/error distinction is a common issue in nearly every accident investigation. Acroterion (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Rockwell B-1 Lancer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

External FlightGlobal.com cutaway image of B-1A is broken. Site has been taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.117.106 (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Engine damage to be included in article?

While stationed in Norway one of the bombers suffered ignificant engine damage, probably from a tablet being sucked in the engine. A wing commander was relieved of command in relation to the mishap.--Znuddel (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[1]

References

  1. ^ https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40209/a-b-1b-bomber-suffered-significant-engine-damage-while-deployed-to-norway
Not likely. The quote in the article from the Tech Sergeant says "engine damage". Wikipedia is not a news service per WP:NOTNEWS. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

We should put a semi-protected lock on this page due to recent events of vandilisim Organic Increse45 (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

A pattern of vandalism is usually needed for higher protection of an article. I don't think there's been enough repeated vandalism lately to need it, imo. But if others think so, I won't oppose it. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rockwell_B-1_Lancer/Archive_3&oldid=1186358031"