Bad To The Bone...

[+Dave 2,319]

Just out of curioisty,,,but wasn't there another B-1B around WIP

 

 

Psst...Canadair, re-read some of my posts in this thread.....

 

[+Dave 2,319]

In da weeds

[tn_prvteye 36]

My dad was on the team that cleared the B-1B to use conventional weapons...he was an Aerospace Engineer. I remember him telling me about making sure there were no problems when they dropped a large stick of Mk.82s.

 

Awesome, awesome plane...can't wait.

[GwynO 16]

My dad was on the team that cleared the B-1B to use conventional weapons...he was an Aerospace Engineer. I remember him telling me about making sure there were no problems when they dropped a large stick of Mk.82s.

 

Awesome, awesome plane...can't wait.

 

 

Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit's Chriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiistmaaaaaaaaas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Early!! wowewewa From when I was 10 I fantasised about flying the 111, but wet dreams where made from Bones!!!!!!!

[+Dave 2,319]

Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit's Chriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiistmaaaaaaaaas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Early!! wowewewa From when I was 10 I fantasised about flying the 111, but wet dreams where made from Bones!!!!!!!

 

TMI TMI TMI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ONETINSOLDIER 2]

@ Dave,,,is that b1b still out front of the air museum in dayton? I got a pic of me standing in front of the nose gear around here somewhere,

[+Dave 2,319]

@ Dave,,,is that b1b still out front of the air museum in dayton? I got a pic of me standing in front of the nose gear around here somewhere,

 

They have a B-1B inside. I think outside was a B-1A. Its in a hanger though waiting to be put back on display.

[+Soulfreak 6,378]

looks very nice....

[GreyCap 0]

I've been looking for a reason to install and play WOE again. This baby will do it! 

[Mannie 21]

Oh my, am I waiting for the bone to roll out here. :yes:

 

Just out of curiosity. why was the B-1A project cancelled?

Edited October 15, 2008 by Mannie

[Salamander67 0]

The B-1A was a quite different bird than the B-1B, designed for the traditional high-altitude strategic role. Then it was re-roled for more low-level flight, but it still was thought to be highly vulnerable when entering Soviet air space, although being faster and having a smaller RCS than the B-52. Also, the program was getting quite expensive, and it was seen that a combination of ATB (the future B-2), ICBM and B-52 with long-range air-launched cruise missiles would be a better option.

[Stick 773]

I remember the first time I flew Flanker 2.5, I had to intercept these 3 B-1's.One moment they were on my radar, and then they turned and dived into the mountains.Needless to say that was the last I saw of them .

 

But I think even in reality it is a very difficult plane to intercept;I dont know if there is any fighter today that has the endurance to keep up with the Lancer full throttle and down low, and the whole distance. This is the real dark horse!

[DWCAce 19]

Just had an early morning thought whilst sitting here, slurping down my orange juice: Will this model have the ALCM stations on the lower fuselage? Or will it be aSALTed ? ;0

[sparkomatic 7]

easy: Jimmy "gave away the Panama Canal" Carter. As well as the worst documented Spec Ops disaster in recorded history he tried to push an already suffering DoD into handing out flowers to Commies.

 

 

 

Oh my, am I waiting for the bone to roll out here. :yes:

 

Just out of curiosity. why was the B-1A project cancelled?

[DWCAce 19]

and yet they named a damn submarine after him.

[JediMaster 451]

The B-1B lost its supersonic capability when the inlets were changed to make the plane more stealthy. The F-117 and B-2 projects were already underway, but the altering of the intake design clearly reflected that they knew what they wanted in the RCS reduction arena.

There were some other changes from the A to the B, but they're not nearly as significant.

 

Last time I flew one was in F4 RP4 or something. I remember dropping 80+ mk82s on an airbase north of the DMZ at 500 kts and 500 ft. SWEET.

[+Dave 2,319]

B-1B still has it super sonic capability Mach 1.25 (950 mph, 1,529 km/h) at altitude (Mach 0.92, 700 mph, 1,130 km/h at low level)

 

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=81

[FastCargo 412]

B-1B still has it super sonic capability Mach 1.25 (950 mph, 1,529 km/h) at altitude (Mach 0.92, 700 mph, 1,130 km/h at low level)

 

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=81

 

That's what it says on paper...

 

FastCargo

[DWCAce 19]

FC, how long did it take to get up to speed? (if it's not OPSEC)

[Stick 773]

I had a feeling the sea-level speeds were too low...

[+streakeagle 866]

easy: Jimmy "gave away the Panama Canal" Carter. As well as the worst documented Spec Ops disaster in recorded history he tried to push an already suffering DoD into handing out flowers to Commies.

 

Actually, Jimmy was quite smart.

Why waste money on the B-1 which was only marginally more survivable than the B-52 when the money could be better spent on the B-2 (which he couldn't tell the public about).

As it stands now, the collapse of the Soviet Union made even the B-2 a waste of time and money while the B-52 continues to serve indefinitely.

 

While the Reagan era threw tons of money at defense spending and combined with his rhetoric suckered the Soviet Union into collapse, the money was not spent very efficiently.

Contractors sucked the government coffers dry.

The A-12 program is just one example.

I would argue that the Sea Wolf submarine and ATF programs that dragged on forever at the cost of billions of dollars before delivering a single production example are further examples.

 

Wiser choices would not have left us stuck with aircraft so old they are falling out of the sky or new aircraft that are either too expensive to buy in adequate numbers (F-22) or less capable than the aircraft that they replace (F/A-18E vs F-14D).

The whole military procurement program has been out of control for a long time and there is no easy fix since the house and senate win great benefits for their states from all these programs whether they are successful or not.

 

As for the Spec Ops disaster... the idea was great. If they had pulled it off, Carter would probably have been re-elected.

The people that made the mistakes that caused the operation to be aborted were beyond Carter's control or responsibility.

If you want to argue that Carter caused a collapse in national pride and a low military budget which contributed to the mission failure, I have two answers for you:

1. National pride and confidence in the military was destroyed by the military-political mess of Vietnam.

2. Congress set the budget and did so in response to item 1.

 

While I loved Reagan's in-your-face responses to hostile actions compared to Carter's "can't we all just get along" attitude, Reagan suffered losses far greater than the failed Iran Hostage Rescue mission.

Think about the bombing of the Beirut embassy.

When faced with the same situation: Arab terrorists holding hostages, rather than trying a bold, risky rescue, Reagan tried to buy the hostages back by selling arms to Iran via Israel.

 

Carter's response to Afghanistan was to boycott the Olympics (which I personally think was stupid as those games are supposed to be about the athletes and above politics),

but Reagan's response was to have the CIA train and fund Osama Bin Laden.

 

Carter succeeded where no President has before or since: he got Egypt and Israel to sign a peace treaty that has lasted.

The end result has been a huge stabilizing factor in the Middle East.

How many attempts have been made to destroy Israel since this treaty?

 

There is a lot more to good foreign policy than flag-waving patriotism, dumping tons of money into the department of defense, and supporting any group that is an enemy of your enemies.

 

The difference between a popular President and an unpopular one seems to be a combination of personal charisma, media support, and serving during a time when the economy is booming.

Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton definitely had all that.

Carter, George Bush Sr. and George Bush Jr. had neither once in office.

 

I think both Carter and George Bush Sr. and going to be greatly respected and admired for the things they did both in and out of office as time goes on.

As is typical of Amercian Presidential election politics, both were held accountable for situations they did not create and were not appreciated for the things they did right.

 

Back to the real topic: The B-1 is a cool plane (much like the B-58), but it was just an alternative to the one we should have had: the XB-70. Operation expenses would have eventually forced its retirement like the SR-71, but it otherwise would have been a strong backbone for our manned nuclear deterence compared to the B-52s and B-1s hoping to penetrate at low altitude. To this day, a Mach 3+ aircraft at high altitude is a difficult target, whereas look-down/shootdown radar has made low-altitude penetration difficult if not impossible.

[FastCargo 412]

FC, how long did it take to get up to speed? (if it's not OPSEC)

 

Honestly, I couldn't tell ya. But the damn thing was a scalded ape in all regimes except for initial takeoff at max gross...then it could take a while. But wings back...it was slick as snot and actually difficult to slow down. Couldn't quite supercruise...you'd need a significant amount of burner to push through the Mach, then min burner to stay there.

 

The limits stated on the website are not because it's power limited...hardly. The jet would do .9 mach down low without breathing hard all day...that's our standard ops speed low level.

 

FastCargo

[FastCargo 412]

whereas look-down/shootdown radar has made low-altitude penetration difficult if not impossible

 

Actually, not as true as you think. However, there are different reasons why low altitude penetration has fallen out of favor.

 

FastCargo

[sparkomatic 7]

I have no desire to hijack this thread in to a political debate...carried to PM...

 

the B-1B is cool, period.

[tn_prvteye 36]

Actually, not as true as you think. However, there are different reasons why low altitude penetration has fallen out of favor.

 

FastCargo

 

Is this due to the types of conflicts we've been involved in? I.E. Iraq/Afghanistan vs. a typical Cold-War scenario? Or are there technical issues that make low-level stuff problematic?

 

And thanks for the information that you CAN give out... Makes me want to fly it in WOE even more.