Talk:B-1 Lancer/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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)

  • 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)

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)

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)
  • Good points. I made changes trying to account for your comments. -Fnlayson 22:51, 4 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)
  • 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)

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)
  • 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)