CO787EWR
Topic Author
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:10 am

Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:38 pm

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.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:45 pm

The B-1B is a good reliable bomber. It does have a speed advantage over both the B-52H and B-2A.
 
Ozair
Posts: 1398
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:34 am



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.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:37 am

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?
 
ulfinator
Posts: 290
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:35 am

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:26 am

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 avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:13 am

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.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:21 pm



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
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 1980
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:14 pm



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'!
 
nomadd22
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:46 pm

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.
Anon
 
RaginMav
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 5:22 am

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:54 pm



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

Amen Dude! The BONE re-defines loud!
 
CO787EWR
Topic Author
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:10 am

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:43 pm



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
 
HaveBlue
Posts: 2111
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:01 pm

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:18 pm



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!
 
Arniepie
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:00 pm

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:42 am

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

[edit post]
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:04 am

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
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:33 am

Not only bad to the bone but absolutely the best looking flying machine to ever grace our atmosphere.
 
CO787EWR
Topic Author
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:10 am

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:48 am



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
 
curlyheadboy
Posts: 814
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 6:56 am

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:34 pm

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...
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:43 pm

Aircraft upgrades made the difference.
 
CO787EWR
Topic Author
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:10 am

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:43 pm



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

What type of upgrades were made to the B1?
 
IronDuke08
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:18 pm

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Thu May 01, 2008 7:38 am



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.
 
4holer
Posts: 2733
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2002 1:47 am

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Thu May 01, 2008 4:33 pm



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.....................
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Thu May 01, 2008 5:53 pm

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
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Thu May 01, 2008 7:46 pm



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
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Thu May 01, 2008 8:33 pm

What's CAS?

Andrea Kent
 
HaveBlue
Posts: 2111
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:01 pm

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Thu May 01, 2008 8:55 pm



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

Close Air Support, instead of Combat Air Partrol (CAP).
Here Here for Severe Clear!
 
epten
Posts: 193
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:12 am

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Thu May 01, 2008 11:09 pm



Quoting DL021 (Reply 3):
can exceed the speed of sound at altitude

I thought B-1 can go supersonic at sea level?
 
Blackprojects
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:22 am

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Thu May 01, 2008 11:51 pm

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 real Quick that if you see a BONE you run and Hide or you DIE real quick as the Bone can drop loads of LGBs all over the area where the Bad guys are located.

A Bone doing a low Flyby in Afghanistan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0-Ate1eohE&feature=related

A Football Fly over by a BONE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_VeO7mM6C8



 old 
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Fri May 02, 2008 12:24 am

Quoting Epten (Reply 25):


Quoting DL021 (Reply 3):
can exceed the speed of sound at altitude

I thought B-1 can go supersonic at sea level?
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 1.2 at altitude according to the USAF and Janes)... but high speed at low altitude is an important capability, and one that gives it incredible get away capability. By the time you hear it it's past your ability to launch bullets at it, and it's too low to go after with SAMs.

As far as noisy goes, the week before they deactivated the GAANG wing of B-1s we had one do a low flyover of Atlanta (right near PDK) and it was AWESOME in the actual truest sense of that word. It was going faster and noisier than I'd seen at any airshows, and I'm fairly sure it was some pilot getting ready to retire.

I can only imagine the nightmares it gives people who've had ordnance dropped on them by one of these popping up from NOWHERE!

[Edited 2008-05-01 17:27:20]
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Fri May 02, 2008 12:56 am



Quoting DL021 (Reply 27):
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 1.2 at altitude according to the USAF and Janes)...

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 supersonic flight. All done at low altitude. In fact, the USAF public numbers show it at Mach 1.2 plus at sea level. http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=81
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Fri May 02, 2008 2:05 am



Quoting Checksixx (Reply 28):
Quoting DL021 (Reply 27):
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 1.2 at altitude according to the USAF and Janes)...

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 supersonic flight. All done at low altitude. In fact, the USAF public numbers show it at Mach 1.2 plus at sea level. 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. It looks like I either misread it or misremembered what I read. Either way it's fast as a scalded dog at low altitude and this gives it tremendous advantages not found in the other strategic bombers we have flying.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Fri May 02, 2008 2:29 am



Quoting DL021 (Reply 27):
I was under the impression it didn't reach supersonic capability at low altitude,,,,just really damned fast



Quoting DL021 (Reply 29):
I said I'd read that it flies supersonic at altitude, not that it didn't at low altitude.

Huh...Guess I can't read then...my bad.
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Fri May 02, 2008 3:07 am



Quoting Curlyheadboy (Reply 16):
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

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 attack. A load of treaties still keeps the external pylons for being used for munitions, however one of the forward fuselage pylons is now used to hang a Litening pod for target self-designation.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Fri May 02, 2008 4:05 am



Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 11):
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.

A fully lit Tomcat could roar too  Wink (sniffle)
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Fri May 02, 2008 3:58 pm

BTW, the B-2 may be stealthy but she sure ain't quiet. Not as loud as a BOne, but right up there.  Smile
Airliners.net Moderator Team
 
KAUSpilot
Posts: 1659
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 2:15 pm

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Fri May 02, 2008 4:58 pm



Quoting BlackProjects (Reply 26):

I was at the game during that flyover. Great flyover and greatest football game of all time.
 
curlyheadboy
Posts: 814
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 6:56 am

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Fri May 02, 2008 5:43 pm



Quoting Spacepope (Reply 31):
Quoting Curlyheadboy (Reply 16):
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

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 attack. A load of treaties still keeps the external pylons for being used for munitions, however one of the forward fuselage pylons is now used to hang a Litening pod for target self-designation.

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 capable of delivering guided ordinance caused some trouble and maybe that's when the aircraft got some undeserved bad fame. I was referring to the time when they weren't yet able to use guided bombs.
If God had wanted men to fly he would have given them more money...
 
Blackprojects
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:22 am

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Fri May 02, 2008 8:29 pm

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 as it Jammed the Shite out the Talibans Gun Track system and then Exterminated the gun track.

It was on a Peice of CNN video i saw the Bone was Jinking and Banking real hard would have been a real fantastic airshow.  old 
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Fri May 02, 2008 9:02 pm

BlackProject

You mean they have anti-radar missiles?


Andrea Kent

[Edited 2008-05-02 14:02:51]
 
Blackprojects
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:22 am

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Fri May 02, 2008 11:17 pm

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 Taliban who were Standing around it.

it was over kill but it got the message across real Fast Dont shoot at me or Else.  old 
 
highlander0
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:29 pm

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Fri May 02, 2008 11:40 pm

ZSU's are Anti-Aircraft Artillery tracked vehicles, not missiles
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Sat May 03, 2008 12:35 am

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 (RCS would be a little higher with the VG inlets)


Andrea Kent
BTW: What treaties keep the external pylons from being used and why?
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Sat May 03, 2008 8:26 am



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 40):
BTW: What treaties keep the external pylons from being used and why?

START, because the external stations were for nukes. I'm not sure if they were even ever actually used in the first place though.
Airliners.net Moderator Team
 
Blackprojects
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:22 am

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Sun May 04, 2008 9:27 pm

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.

Shame a Bone Loaded with HARMS or other Non nuclear devices Would be a big supprise to the bad guys.  old 
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber

Sun May 04, 2008 9:43 pm

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 even approved for use so its a mum point. The only thing B-1's are currently carrying externally is the Sniper Pod and as far as I know, that's not even approved across the board yet.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: WIederling and 11 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos