Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber  
User currently offlineCO787EWR From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 222 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8208 times:

Please go gentle on me this is my first post in this forum...

So I know that their are three main bombers for the US air force the B52, B1, and B2. The thing that confuses me is that I always "hear" how great the other bombers are. Is their something wrong with the B1 does it not perform as well as the other two bombers. So I was just wondering if the B1 just falls short of the mark and that the other two bombers can out-perform it.

43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8222 times:

The B-1B is a good reliable bomber. It does have a speed advantage over both the B-52H and B-2A.

User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 8153 times:



Quoting CO787EWR (Thread starter):
So I was just wondering if the B1 just falls short of the mark and that the other two bombers can out-perform it.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
The B-1B is a good reliable bomber. It does have a speed advantage over both the B-52H and B-2A.

The B-1B is also the reliable performer of current operations in the Middle East. A large load, long range as well as quick transit times compared to the other two make it the aircraft of choice.


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 8150 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The B-1B is an incredible piece of equipment that fulfills a mission no other US aircraft can. It hauls very large loads over long distances at high rates of speed and is capable of very very low profile flights, and can exceed the speed of sound at altitude. It's one hell of an airplane.

It's also very noisy, a maintenance hog and hyper expensive. But then again it is a high performance war machine entering it's 30th year of service.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineUlfinator From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 8111 times:

One of my friends was on the ground in Afghanistan and he said they would take a pair of B-1Bs any day over a pair of anything else. When B-1Bs show up they have something like 25 1000lb JDAMS (not sure on the exact number) and loiter for a long time versus another strike package with maybe 6 or 8 bombs. The TACPs on the ground can ask for weapons all day long.

Another friend is a B-1B WSO and I have heard a bunch from him. It doesn't seem to be too abnormal to have them break down. Many times they will have to have at least 4 birds ready to get two off on a mission. I do know that he really loves his job and the aircraft though.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6484 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 8057 times:

The B-1B is very capable. Much of its problem seems to be political. It got a bad reputation due to Carter's BS. It's not the Wunderwaffe that the B-2 is, and it doesn't have the nostalgia that the B-52 does. It is probably more useful against any current opponent than either the B-52 or B-2 though, with the exception of Russia and China.


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7738 times:



Quoting DL021 (Reply 3):
It's also very noisy,

That's a fact! I was out practicing my kayaking on the Kansas River when a BOne did a low pass over the NASCAR track nearby. He came right over the river with the pipes lit and it almost gave me a heart attack. It was really cool though, he wasn't over 500 ft. AGL. This was a KANG bird out of McConnell.



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2442 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7696 times:



Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 6):
Quoting DL021 (Reply 3):
It's also very noisy,

That's a fact! I was out practicing my kayaking on the Kansas River when a BOne did a low pass over the NASCAR track nearby. He came right over the river with the pipes lit and it almost gave me a heart attack.

That ain't no lie! I remember a couple of years ago when we had a couple B1's depart STL after the VP Fair. They both took off full after burner which was a gas. Naturally, the phone lines lit up with the NIMBY's bitchin' away. One call was actually funny though, it was from a Boeing employee at STL. He says - "Look I work at Boeing and deal with the F-15's all the time but what the hell was that?!". He chuckled when I told him what they were.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineNomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1864 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7661 times:

The B1 can carry 8 2,000lb JDAMs in each bay for 24, but the 3rd bay is often used for extra tankage, so 16 is a more likely number.


Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineRaginMav From United States of America, joined May 2004, 376 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7653 times:



Quoting DL021 (Reply 3):
It's also very noisy

Amen Dude! The BONE re-defines loud!


User currently offlineCO787EWR From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7589 times:



Quoting Ulfinator (Reply 4):
One of my friends was on the ground in Afghanistan and he said they would take a pair of B-1Bs any day over a pair of anything else. When B-1Bs show up they have something like 25 1000lb JDAMS (not sure on the exact number) and loiter for a long time versus another strike package with maybe 6 or 8 bombs. The TACPs on the ground can ask for weapons all day long.

Another friend is a B-1B WSO and I have heard a bunch from him. It doesn't seem to be too abnormal to have them break down. Many times they will have to have at least 4 birds ready to get two off on a mission. I do know that he really loves his job and the aircraft though.



Quoting N328KF (Reply 5):
The B-1B is very capable. Much of its problem seems to be political. It got a bad reputation due to Carter's BS. It's not the Wunderwaffe that the B-2 is, and it doesn't have the nostalgia that the B-52 does. It is probably more useful against any current opponent than either the B-52 or B-2 though, with the exception of Russia and China

Thanks guys for answering my question it just seemed that people were "hating" on the B1 and I thought it was the red-headed step child of the Air Force Bomber Wing


User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2108 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7561 times:



Quoting RaginMav (Reply 9):
Quoting DL021 (Reply 3):
It's also very noisy

Amen Dude! The BONE re-defines loud!

I've always said the B-1 in burner or the AV-8B hovering are the 2 loudest jet sounds I've ever heard personally.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineArniePie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7507 times:

Apparently not only a good bomber but also effective against fighter aircraft!!!




[edit post]
User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1095 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7439 times:

You must not check the Air Force website. They had an article on it several weeks ago and today just released another article.

"May 2 marks 20 years since the last B-1B Lancer was delivered to the Air Force, and today commanders consider it one of the most valuable aircraft in Iraq."

Read the whole thing here: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123094831


User currently offlineAlien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7424 times:

Not only bad to the bone but absolutely the best looking flying machine to ever grace our atmosphere.

User currently offlineCO787EWR From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7420 times:



Quoting Checksixx (Reply 13):
You must not check the Air Force website. They had an article on it several weeks ago and today just released another article.

"May 2 marks 20 years since the last B-1B Lancer was delivered to the Air Force, and today commanders consider it one of the most valuable aircraft in Iraq."

Read the whole thing here: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=...94831

 checkmark  I dont check the Air Force website. It seems that B1-B is great in the CAP role because its speed to station and its ability to loiter with a good payload unlike other aircraft


User currently offlineCurlyheadboy From Italy, joined Feb 2005, 940 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7099 times:

I have the impression that the B1 got some sort of bad reputation in its first years of duty, due to the fact that it wasn't capable of delivering early models of guided bombs, I think the introduction of the JDAM guidance kit has enormously enhanced the aircraft attack capabilities.


If God had wanted men to fly he would have given them more money...
User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1095 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 7063 times:

Aircraft upgrades made the difference.

User currently offlineCO787EWR From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6958 times:



Quoting Checksixx (Reply 17):
Aircraft upgrades made the difference.

What type of upgrades were made to the B1?


User currently offlineIronDuke08 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 117 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6878 times:



Quoting ArniePie (Reply 12):
Apparently not only a good bomber but also effective against fighter aircraft!!!

That's one of the funnier things I've seen in a while! That must've been a pretty awkward few minutes for the F-16 pilot... "Hey guys, can you give me a little push? I'm kinda stuck over here..."

Quoting CO787EWR (Thread starter):
Is their something wrong with the B1 does it not perform as well as the other two bombers. So I was just wondering if the B1 just falls short of the mark and that the other two bombers can out-perform it.

Well, it's an absolutely incredible machine, when it works. Based upon what I've read, the only things I'd disagree with that have been said are the words:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
reliable

and

Quoting Ozair (Reply 2):
reliable

...unfortunately, the bone is NOT a "reliable" aircraft. But, as Ulfinator said,

Quoting Ulfinator (Reply 4):
It doesn't seem to be too abnormal to have them break down.

and this situation is generally remedied by:

Quoting Ulfinator (Reply 4):
Many times they will have to have at least 4 birds ready to get two off on a mission.

because nothing else in the USAF inventory has the capabilities of the bone. In fairness, it probably has as good of mission capable rate as the B-2, though. I think I read in an Air & Space article that someone said in all of his years in aviation, he's never met as superstitious a group as B-1 crew chiefs. There are stories of them all having certain areas and routines about talking to and rubbing their airplanes for good luck/karma. To me though, all of this just adds so much character to the temperamental beasts and makes them all the more lovable for it. The relationship that these crews have with their A/C exemplify why most of us here love aviation so much.

IMHO it's easily one of the sexiest aircraft ever made.


User currently online4holer From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 3017 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6818 times:



Quoting Alien (Reply 14):
Not only bad to the bone but absolutely the best looking flying machine to ever grace our atmosphere.

Close, but the XB-70 takes that prize.

But I'd love to catch a Bone takeoff before they end up in the desert at AMARC.



Ghosts appear and fade away.....................
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6783 times:

The B-1B ain't a bad bomber. Internal capacity of 75,000 lbs, and a provision for 59,000 lbs of external ordinance and moderately stealthy. It had one of the best electronic jamming systems of its day, which I'm pretty sure they've upgraded over the years. Despite it's massive size, it maneuvers quite well as you've all probably seen. I don't know how good it's thrust/weight ratio is, though. (It sure seems to take an immense amount of time to get into the air, and I've never seen it doing a really steep climb)

However, I think the B-1A was way cooler. It had the same internal weapons capacity, was actually quite a bit lighter, could swing it's wings back farther, and was faster at altitude -- Official stats list it at around Mach 2.0 or 2.2, which to my knowledge was a sustained cruise figure, but it's probably a bit faster. (With wingsweeps that high, and continuous afterburner use for cruise, usually indicates speeds of at least Mach 3, even with a turbofan*) Unfortunately, the design really only had the capability for nuclear weapons use, which is not exactly an example of versatility. It was one of the many problems that the B-58 had.


-------------------------
Note:
1.) The L-2000 SST design which was designed for Mach 3.0 @ 75,000 feet, although not built was to use a low-bypass (1.3 : 1.0) JTF-17 turbofan with continuous afterburner use. Duct burning fans are actually not all that bad for high-speed use, as long as the fan's pressure ratio is high-enough. Even if the fan pressure ratio is the same as the air pressure as it reaches the main afterburner, and exhaust velocities are around the same you'll still draw a benefit -- the core flow only has about 65% air in the mix, the rest was burned up. The flow off the fan is just air.

2.) The F-101 which powered the B-1A had a higher pressure ratio which probably made up for the higher-bypass ratio, while this would produce higher turbine temperatures, General Electric did develop some very advanced turbine-cooling technologies (Starting back with the J-93, which was capable of speeds up to Mach 4) which have only increased since 1957 (Around the time the J-93 was given the contract for the XB-70 program -- the B-70 appears to not be as fast, maxing out apparently somewhere between Mach 3 and Mach 4 at high altitudes judging by KEAS figures).

3.) The sweep-back angles of the B-1 adequately high and combined with the extensive use of wing-body blending, probably are able to produce good L/D ratios even at very high-speeds.
---------------------------


Andrea Kent


User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 6750 times:



Quoting CO787EWR (Reply 15):
I dont check the Air Force website. It seems that B1-B is great in the CAP role because its speed to station and its ability to loiter with a good payload unlike other aircraft

I'm sure you meant CAS, not CAP. Combat Air Patrols are generally only performed by fighters.  Wink

The swing-wing mechanism of the B-1 automatically makes it high-maintenence. However, it's my understanding that since the force was cut the mission capable rates for the fleet as a whole have gone up dramatically. I guess the AMARC birds provide a lot of spare parts and this is helping keep the cost lower.
I also remember something about the reasons for limiting the wing sweep on the B-1B. Wasn't there a CG issue with the B-1A with the wings fully swept?



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6714 times:

What's CAS?

Andrea Kent


User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2108 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6704 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 23):
What's CAS?

Close Air Support, instead of Combat Air Partrol (CAP).



Here Here for Severe Clear!
25 Epten : I thought B-1 can go supersonic at sea level?
26 Post contains links BlackProjects : A Bone with the Pipes Lit (BURNERS) can go Supersonic at Low or Hi level just it uses Fuel like it"s going out of Fashion. The Taliban has Learned rea
27 DL021 : I was under the impression it didn't reach supersonic capability at low altitude,,,,just really damned fast (it is supposed to be able to reach Mach
28 Post contains links Checksixx : Where does the USAF say that? I'm positive it doesn't as there are numerous videos of it breaking low altitude records at an airshow including supers
29 DL021 : " target=_blank>http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factshe...id=81 I said I'd read that it flies supersonic at altitude, not that it didn't at low altitude
30 Checksixx : Huh...Guess I can't read then...my bad.
31 Spacepope : That is a bit misleading. Up untill after GW1, all B-1s were solely dedicated to nuke strike, and so were simply not wired for any conventional attac
32 Osiris30 : A fully lit Tomcat could roar too (sniffle)
33 MCIGuy : BTW, the B-2 may be stealthy but she sure ain't quiet. Not as loud as a BOne, but right up there.
34 KAUSpilot : I was at the game during that flyover. Great flyover and greatest football game of all time.
35 CURLYHEADBOY : That's what I meant to tell, I'm sorry I didn't elaborate enough. The fact that they had to convert a nuclear bomber into a conventional bomber capab
36 BlackProjects : At the start of the Afghanistan Campaign the taliban tried to lock up a BONE low level with a Shilka-ZSU-23-4 and the Bone gave them a real supprise a
37 Blackbird : BlackProject You mean they have anti-radar missiles? Andrea Kent[Edited 2008-05-02 14:02:51]
38 BlackProjects : No it got Exterminated by the Bone Dropping a Shed Load of Bombs all over it"s ass. The ZSU or ZU-ZU as some call them ceased to Exhist along with the
39 Highlander0 : ZSU's are Anti-Aircraft Artillery tracked vehicles, not missiles
40 Blackbird : Still, it would have been way cooler had they adapted a B-1A to carry conventional weapons in my book... although for all I know, I could be wrong (RC
41 MCIGuy : START, because the external stations were for nukes. I'm not sure if they were even ever actually used in the first place though.
42 BlackProjects : The External Stores Stations are wired up so in Theory a BONE could be armed with almost any kind of Missiles just the Start Treaties say it"s a NO-NO
43 Checksixx : Actually as long as it was non-nuclear, the B-1 could carry external stores just like the BUFF does. I don't believe the external stores config is eve
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
"Now Is The Time To Take Longer Strides"-Rutan CEV posted Fri Dec 10 2004 16:28:28 by N328KF
Time To Split Off The First "A" In Nasa? posted Fri Feb 2 2007 21:46:42 by N328KF
Does The F/A-18 "Super Hornet" Have AC? posted Sat Jul 1 2006 22:36:49 by CX747
Boeing Gets The Nelson "touch" posted Thu Jun 29 2006 15:08:30 by Baroque
Question About "The Chase" posted Fri Jun 16 2006 04:00:56 by Aloges
How Capable Is Tornado In A "knife Fight"? posted Thu Nov 24 2005 17:09:24 by CHRISBA777ER
Misuse Of The Term "Air Force One" posted Mon May 16 2005 01:24:29 by AsstChiefMark
Why Is It Called A "poopie Suit" posted Wed Nov 17 2004 03:48:35 by Qxeguy
The First "Smarter" Bomb? posted Thu Sep 19 2002 22:16:13 by Bsergonomics
The Bell "King Cobra" Questions. posted Fri Oct 5 2001 19:34:54 by Mr Spaceman
Does The F/A-18 "Super Hornet" Have AC? posted Sat Jul 1 2006 22:36:49 by CX747
Boeing Gets The Nelson "touch" posted Thu Jun 29 2006 15:08:30 by Baroque
Question About "The Chase" posted Fri Jun 16 2006 04:00:56 by Aloges
How Capable Is Tornado In A "knife Fight"? posted Thu Nov 24 2005 17:09:24 by CHRISBA777ER
Misuse Of The Term "Air Force One" posted Mon May 16 2005 01:24:29 by AsstChiefMark
Why Is It Called A "poopie Suit" posted Wed Nov 17 2004 03:48:35 by Qxeguy
How Capable Is Tornado In A "knife Fight"? posted Thu Nov 24 2005 17:09:24 by CHRISBA777ER
Misuse Of The Term "Air Force One" posted Mon May 16 2005 01:24:29 by AsstChiefMark
Why Is It Called A "poopie Suit" posted Wed Nov 17 2004 03:48:35 by Qxeguy

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format