Talk:B-1 Lancer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives |
Archive 1 |
Contents |
[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"
-
-
- Boeing 2707#Design Competition
- Boeing 2707#Legacy
- http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:UkI2L4Oce5cJ:www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/b2707-design.htm+2707+B-1+swing&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us (the cached version highlights your search terms) BQZip01 05:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] 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)
- Interesting. Thanks for the reply Maury. Jeff/Fnlayson 04:15, 30 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).
- I hope they didn't weld on aluminum. -Fnlayson 15:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
- Agreed. The list the B-2 has is kinda of long with 20 planes. 104 B-1s is massive list. -Fnlayson 04:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Agree. This list is long enough that even if notable and verifiable it would belong in its own list article, not here.--J Clear 02:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] B-1A epilogue and gallery
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)
[edit] 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)
- The main change was getting rid of the escape capsule. I didn't think that changed the exterior profile any though. -Fnlayson 15:04, 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)
- I'm not seeing a discernible difference, comparing the B-1B profile images to the B-1A one. Here's a figure from my Jenkins book that shows the main external B-1A to B-1B differences. -Fnlayson 05:24, 18 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)
[edit] 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)
- That's unsymmetrical and the takeoff and long distance flying was probably new. -Fnlayson 18:39, 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)
- It took them about a month before flying it to the UK. Being cautious and checking things out, I guess. Here's another article from AF news Bomber rescue.., Oct. 26. -Fnlayson 19:53, 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
-
- That's the crux of the problem. Look here: [1] You see that the landing gear take up a considerable area from the centerline to the nacelles. Now, look at this picture: [2] 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: [3]. 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)