Talk:B-1 Lancer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Portal:Aviation
 Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(comments)
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

  • I added that 3-view image from your article. Thanks for your message! -Fnlayson 02:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Also got the idea of the Block upgrades from your article. Tried translating it on google, but that didn't work quite right. Got the info from other sources. -Fnlayson 05:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

  • The articles were identical. I redirected the Rockwell B-1 article to here. -Fnlayson 14:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
  • Good points. I made changes trying to account for your comments. -Fnlayson 22:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
  • I moved that paragraph to the end of the B-1B section. That seemed like the best fit. -Fnlayson 16:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
  • Thanks Bill. Jeff /Fnlayson 03:17, 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.

  • It'd help if we could get reference(s) for the B-1A history. Much of that was added in late Dec. -Fnlayson 22:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

  • Thanks for your help. I'll have to make some time to read all the background and history straight through. :) -Fnlayson 17:46, 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 a lot of info. It should be here or in a history type article. -Fnlayson 20:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
  • Would the XB-70 Valkyrie qualify as related as well? It was a high speed bomber designed by North American. -Fnlayson 05:10, 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"
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/-/1/Talk%7EB-1_Lancer_8e37.html"