Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 11/5/2001 8:20:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/12/2001 11:09:58 AM EDT by DScottHewitt]
The original plan for the B-1 Lancer in conventional warfare was 128 internal bombs in the three bays and 44 external bombs on the eight external hardpoints. What we got was a system using three SLOOOOOW to reload Conventional Weapons Modules carrying a total of 84 internal bombs, and NO external ordnance. A single B-1 carrying 172 Mark 82 500-pounders would have 19 more bombs than a "cell" of three B52Hs. Why did we handicap ourselves so badly? Scott ;b ------------------ QUIS CUSTODIET IPSOS CUSTODES?? SUPPORT THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!!!!
Link Posted: 11/5/2001 10:13:43 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/5/2001 10:18:25 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/5/2001 10:21:36 AM EDT
And as I recall, some of its development was halted. At the time the US felt it needed a mach capible bomber to get in deep enough into enemy lands. But an incident with a civilian jet liner (I don't remember if it was japanese or korean,)proved the Russians inept at intercepts, so it wasn't in as much pressure to finish, or make it better, and the b-52's could still do the job.
Link Posted: 11/5/2001 12:35:29 PM EDT
I am at work right now so please accept my apologies, but I have some info at home that shows that the B-1B holds a lot of records for getting payload to altitude and distance in the shortest time. I don't know what the post above is saying about a B-1 not being able to climb high enough. That is simply not true. And, I guarantee that a B-1 with its hardpoints loaded to the hilt would still have a smaller radar signature than a B-52. I remember this issue from years ago with the original B-1A. It had a long dorsal fin running almost the length of its spine that tied into to vertical stabilizer. The plane was reflecting radar pretty bad - something like the size of a pickup truck. When they removed this fin on the B-1B, the result was a radar cross section equivalent to the size of a basketball. Pretty cool, huh. As much as I love the B-52, it's 1950's technology would definitely not allow it to evade rader nearly as well as the B-1B. (Jammers excluded of course!) If I had to penetrate real air defenses (not like pussy Afghanistan), I would definitely rather be in a B-1B. It's faster, quicker, manuevers just like a fighter, has terrain following radar for high-speed, low-level penetration, has plenty of power and carries tons of payload. Don't listen to the B.S.!!!- Some people are still pissed that Rockwell International got that contract years ago and in their envious, jealous state they began spreading these viscious rumors that have never quite died. The B-52 and the B-1 both rock!!! Neither is a POS. Look towards Russia if you want to find a POS!
Link Posted: 11/5/2001 12:46:02 PM EDT
Its all about turnaround times. If it takes 10 times as long to manually load every single bomb into a B-1 then to have the Weapons modules reloaded by the ground crews while the B-1 is on an attack saves time. When the B-1 gets back the drop the used modules and hoist in new ones. Saving hours at least. That means that instead of putting one sorty per aircraft per day in they may get three out of her and in the end put 2.5 times as much ordinance on the field of battle. Thats my thinking in any case
Link Posted: 11/5/2001 1:02:10 PM EDT
The B-1 still carries 84 500lb bombs internally, the same as the old D model "Big Belly" B-52's. Eventually you get to the point of overkill. There was no point killing the aircrafts flying charachteristics with the external bombs. Things will probably change in about 35 years- when the B52's are finally retired. I imagine the B-1 will continue on for at least as long as the Buff sot that will take us to 2070.
Link Posted: 11/5/2001 1:03:35 PM EDT
Thats what I heard too, the reload time is on the order of ten hours without the modules. Not to mention the external stores will greatly diminish the range and with the target in Afghanistan you need the longest legs possible.
Link Posted: 11/5/2001 1:24:38 PM EDT
Speaking of castration, they also cut the B-1's original thrust. Again, all my info is at home, but if memory serves the original B-1A could hit mach 2+. The B-1B Lancer is now has a top speed of just over mach 1. I asked some B-1B pilots at the Ft. Smith air show last year why that happened. They just simply said that the Air Force determined that the role of the B-1B didn't require any more speed than high sub-sonic/low supersonic. I still wonder though. It must be something to do with fuel cost and flight range. I drive a Z28 that will do 150+ mph but I don't really ever drive it that fast. Couldn't they have just left the speed alone on the B-1 just incase our air crews ever needed extra speed to get away from enemy fighters? I wonder if some damn politician made that decision?
Link Posted: 11/5/2001 1:33:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BBURN: Speaking of castration, they also cut the B-1's original thrust. Again, all my info is at home, but if memory serves the original B-1A could hit mach 2+. The B-1B Lancer is now has a top speed of just over mach 1. I asked some B-1B pilots at the Ft. Smith air show last year why that happened. They just simply said that the Air Force determined that the role of the B-1B didn't require any more speed than high sub-sonic/low supersonic. I still wonder though. It must be something to do with fuel cost and flight range. I drive a Z28 that will do 150+ mph but I don't really ever drive it that fast. Couldn't they have just left the speed alone on the B-1 just incase our air crews ever needed extra speed to get away from enemy fighters? I wonder if some damn politician made that decision?
View Quote
No, it was when the Air Force changed the B-1 from high altitude bombing to NOE penetration. Changes to the wings and especially the air intakes resulted which cut the high altitude speed, but IMPROVED the speed on the deck. The B-1B is also heavier than the B-1A. Even a F-15E (which also has Terrain Following Radar) has trouble keeping up with a B-1B on the deck. Of course here we are using them in Afganistan with 16 tons of conventional bombs, in which role they actually arent any faster than the B52's due to the sheer weight of what they are carrying.
Link Posted: 11/5/2001 5:45:10 PM EDT
Years ago while stationed in South Dakota. I was putting the finishing touches on a weather briefing. A BUFF driver came up to me and asked me the difference between a B-52 and a B-1. He told me, "one is a bomber, and the other is a bingo call"
Link Posted: 11/5/2001 10:14:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By WX: Years ago while stationed in South Dakota. I was putting the finishing touches on a weather briefing. A BUFF driver came up to me and asked me the difference between a B-52 and a B-1. He told me, "one is a bomber, and the other is a bingo call"
View Quote
Um, which is which? [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 11/6/2001 5:06:53 AM EDT
Yes, I'm wondering which one as well! Isn't it great that we have so many awesome weapons that we have to debate which one is the best!!! Rock on USAF! BBURN
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 11:15:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/12/2001 11:09:22 AM EDT by DScottHewitt]
Info on the Bone: [url]http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-1b.htm[/url] Scott
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 11:18:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/12/2001 11:12:49 AM EDT by DScottHewitt]
A Bone dropping 84 Mark 82s: [img]http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-1b_02.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b1_mk82.jpg[/img] Scott
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 11:21:42 AM EDT
Like CBUs, instead? [img]http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b1_cbus.jpg[/img] Scott
Top Top