pace51
Boom?
+194|5580|Markham, Ontario
I've been reading my comments, and, since many of you non-trolls feel that I am Making bf2s my own blog, or making bad posts, I'm approaching these "Real world facts" guides from a different angle. From now on, just discuss the plane featured in the post, tell others why you like it, complain that the Russians stole the idea from us..., etc. If you want a "real world facts guide" I'll make on, and put it here. However, just discuss the plane, and if you have complaints about the guide, voice them (as long as they are constructive criticsm).

Sun. Apr. 11/10                                    Pace51

Real world facts about the B-1B Lancer

Manufacturer: Rockwell
Range: 11, 675 Km
Powered by: Four 133.57 kN General Electric F101-GE-102 turbofans
Max. Speed: Mach 1.2, however it is usually used at speeds of Mach 0.99 (999 Km/H)
Accommodates: Four crew members
Armament: Eight cruise missiles, or 12 B28 Nuclear bombs, or 24 B61/B83 Nuclear bombs. However, in theory, it can carry a load of 60, 782.

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/52201/B-1B_Lancer_is_refuled_by_KC-135R_Stratotanker.jpg

     Although other bombers, like the B52, had more nostalgia, and bombers like the B-2 were released with more pomp and ceremony, the B-1B lancer is one of the most advanced and deadliest nuclear bombers out in the world today. It is a very large long-range strategic nuclear bomber. It now fills the strategic bomber roll previously filled by the b-52. The first B-1A was flown in 1974. The B-1B came out 10 years later.

     The plane is equipped with PLZT blast curtains that shield the crew from the thermonuclear blast; however this doesn’t mean its nuclear-bomb proof. Like the tu-160 blackjack, the B1’s tail is high set and avoids the engine efflux. The B-1 generally only carries the SRAM nuclear missile, or B-28, B-61, and B83 free falling bombs. The B-1 has decent stealth capabilities, and incorporates a radar cross-section. Like the F-14, the B-1 is a swept-wing aircraft. It’s quite an advanced bomber, but most of its equipment, especially in the nose, is still classified. However, it a Westinghouse AN/AQP-164 Attack Radar.

     When carrying out a nuclear strike with an SRAM, the B-1B lancer is capable of performing several attack maneuvers. It can launch the cruise-style nuclear missiles a safe distance from its target. It was originally supposed to carry out nuclear strikes from high levels with its missiles, but before the prototype was developed, new and advanced SAM technologies made this strategy useless, and dangerous. This strategy was also popular at the time for propelling nuclear bombs large distances by launching them at a 45 degree angle, and although this tactic is not very accurate or reliable, the bomb is, after all, nuclear. You could miss by 2, or more miles and still smash your target. Wwhen it entered service, the Air Force decided that they would put the Lancers amazing low-level performance to good use. The swing-wing’s gave the low level performance needed to secure the B-1 in its role as a low level penetration bomber. This means that its primary tactic is to fly at low level’s and launch missiles from a distance away, and then escape.

     The B-1B is flown similarly to a fighter by the pilot and co-pilot. The offensive and defensive systems operators sit close behind the pilots. It has great handling for a bomber, and flies comfortably and effectively at cruising speeds. Now, the Lancer is used conventionally, as a regular bomber. The structure of the fuselage is composed of incredibly strong titanium alloys, as well as aluminum alloys and composite glass fibres. The bomber also carries three bomb bays. It crashed once in training when the fuel transfer computer was overrode by the crew, which unbalanced the aircraft. It wasn’t carrying any active munitions.

This RWF is very specific, talking mainly about the technical performance of the aircraft. No trolls, I didn't copy-paste it from wikipedia

B-1B Lancer Awesome nuclear bomber
Discuss.

Last edited by pace51 (2010-04-15 13:44:59)

RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,746|7144|Cinncinatti
bombs are good


btw i love the look of the plane.

Last edited by RTHKI (2010-04-14 12:30:57)

https://i.imgur.com/tMvdWFG.png
Metal-Eater-GR
I can haz titanium paancakez?
+490|6679
But we don't know anything about it
pace51
Boom?
+194|5580|Markham, Ontario
First I'm told that I shouldn't post real worlds facts threads. Now, you want them... that makes me so... freaking... actually pretty happy. Ill make a real world facts guide for it as a general oveview, then you can discuss it.
RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,746|7144|Cinncinatti
werent we supposed to have a general thread for this? i thought we were..
https://i.imgur.com/tMvdWFG.png
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6630|Escea

Bad to the B-One.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/B1s.jpg
pace51
Boom?
+194|5580|Markham, Ontario

RTHKI wrote:

werent we supposed to have a general thread for this? i thought we were..
It got closed and Kmarion said I could post individuAlly again.

Last edited by pace51 (2010-04-14 12:58:39)

11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5644|Cleveland, Ohio

pace51 wrote:

Kmarion said I could post individuAlly again.
brb
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7008|132 and Bush

I have no problem with anyone posting a genuine topic about a specific aircraft.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
henno13
A generally unremarkable member
+230|6755|Belfast
https://img444.imageshack.us/img444/9193/800pxb1boverthepacificod.jpg

The Rockwell (now part of Boeing) B-1 Lancer is a strategic bomber used by the United States Air Force. First envisioned in the 1960s as a supersonic  bomber with sufficient range and payload to replace the B-52 Stratofortress, it developed primarily into a low-level penetrator with long range and supersonic speed capability. Its development was stopped and restarted multiple times over its history, as the theory of strategic balance changed from flexible response to mutually assured destruction and back again. It eventually entered service more than 20 years after first being studied.

The B-1B production version has been in service with the United States Air Force (USAF) since 1986. The Lancer serves as the supersonic component of the USAF's long-range bomber force, along with the subsonic B-52 and B-2 Spirit. The bomber is commonly called the "Bone" (originally from "B-One"). With the retirement of the EF-111 Raven in 1998 and the F-14 Tomcat in 2006, the B-1B is the U.S. military's only active variable-sweep wing aircraft.

On taking office, Reagan was faced with the same decision as Carter before; whether to continue with the B-1 for the short term, or to wait for the development of the ATB, a much more advanced aircraft. He decided to do both. Air Force studies suggested that the existing B-52 fleet with ALCM would remain a credible threat until 1985, as it was predicted that 75% of the B-52 force would survive to attack its targets. After this period the introduction of the SA-10 missile, MiG-31 interceptor and the first Soviet AWACS  systems would make them increasingly vulnerable.

During the FY81 budget funds were given to a new study for a bomber for the 1990s time-frame. These studies led to the Long-Range Combat Aircraft (LRCA) project which compared the B-1, F-111 and ATB as possible solutions. An emphasis was placed on the design being multi-role, as opposed to a purely strategic weapon. At the time it was believed the B-1 could be in operation before the B-2, covering the time period between the B-52s increasing vulnerability and the introduction of the ATB. Reagan decided the best solution was to purchase both the B-1 and ATB, and this eventually led to Reagan's 2 October 1981 announcement that a new version of the B-1 was being ordered to fill the LRCA role.

Numerous changes were made to the design to better fit it to real-world missions, resulting in the new B-1B. These changes included a reduction in maximum speed, which allowed the variable-aspect intake ramps to be replaced by simpler fixed geometry intake ramps in the newer design. This reduced the B version's radar signature because the compressor faces of the engines, major radar reflectors, would be partially hidden. Low-altitude speed was somewhat improved, from about Mach 0.85 to 0.92. This left the B-1B with the capability for speeds of about Mach 1.25 "at altitude", a reduction from the B-1A's Mach 2 performance.
B-1B banking during a demonstration in 2004

The B-1B's maximum takeoff weight was increased to 477,000 lb (216,000 kg) from the B-1A's 395,000 lb (179,000 kg). The weight increase was to allow for takeoffs with full fuel tanks and for weapons to be carried externally. Rockwell engineers were able to reinforce critical areas and lighten non-critical areas of the airframe so the increase in empty weight was minimal. In order to deal with the introduction of the MiG-31 and other aircraft with look-down capability, the B-1B's electronic warfare suite was significantly upgraded. These changes, along with the rampant inflation of the U.S. economy during the time, dramatically increased the nominal price to about $200 million total projected lifetime cost per completed airframe.

Opposition to the plan was widespread within Congress. Critics pointed out that many of the original problems with the concept remained. In particular it seemed the B-52 fitted with electronics similar to the B-1B would be equally able to avoid interception, as the speed advantage of the B-1 was now minimal. It also appeared that the "interim" time frame served by the B-1B would be less than a decade, being rendered obsolete shortly after introduction by the much more capable ATB design. The primary argument in favor of the B-1 was its large conventional payload, and that its takeoff performance allowed it to operate with a credible bombload from a much wider variety of airfields. The debate remained rancorous. But the Air Force very astutely spread production subcontracts across many congressional districts, making the aircraft more popular on Capitol Hill.

The first production model of the revised B-1B first flew in October 1984, and the first B-1B, "The Star of Abilene", was delivered to Dyess Air Force Base, Abilene, Texas, in June 1985, with initial operational capability on 1 October 1986. The 100th and final B-1B was delivered 2 May 1988.
/thread
Stubbee
Religions Hate Facts, Questions and Doubts
+223|7150|Reality
The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5765|London, England

Kmarion wrote:

I have no problem with anyone posting a genuine topic about a specific aircraft.
It's nothing but spam. If I cared, I would go to wikipedia myself.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
pace51
Boom?
+194|5580|Markham, Ontario

JohnG@lt wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I have no problem with anyone posting a genuine topic about a specific aircraft.
It's nothing but spam. If I cared, I would go to wikipedia myself.
You think that, by commenting that you don't care, I'm gonna want you to care? This is for the people who asked for it, and its a nice simple discussion. If you want, though, we can always go to the octagon...

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=136056

Last edited by pace51 (2010-04-14 13:44:28)

pace51
Boom?
+194|5580|Markham, Ontario
I'm still gonna keep posting these

So thanks for your input, and have a nice day. Don't forget to pick up your coat on the way out.
pace51
Boom?
+194|5580|Markham, Ontario

seymorebutts443 wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

pace51 wrote:


You think that, by commenting that you don't care, I'm gonna want you to care? This is for the people who asked for it, and its a nice simple discussion. If you want, though, we can always go to the octagon...
Who asked for it..?
no one did actually, therefore this thread=spam.
Oh, and seymoure, you continue to prove that you either ignore my posts, or don't even read them or the comments. Check my karma section, a member did request it. Have a nice day.
pace51
Boom?
+194|5580|Markham, Ontario

seymorebutts443 wrote:

i think we will let the mods decide this one. considering the majority of the people posting in this thread are calling it useless, i think you will find it closed soon enough.


Also, my name is spelled seymore, there is no u in the first half of my name.
Yes we shall.
loubot
O' HAL naw!
+470|6985|Columbus, OH
Real World Facts - It bombed the Decepticons and Megatron to nuts and bolts in Transformer II movie!
pace51
Boom?
+194|5580|Markham, Ontario
Reopened. Any requests for the next thread?
SEREVENT
MASSIVE G STAR
+605|6514|Birmingham, UK

pace51 wrote:

Reopened. Any requests for the next thread?
your request for a perm ban?

or to avoid my perm ban how about doing a tank maybe the challenger II
RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,746|7144|Cinncinatti
I vote for the Leopard 2.
https://i.imgur.com/tMvdWFG.png
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5880|Ventura, California
Stay real, how about a tank that actually kicks ass.

Challenger 2 or Abrams
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5644|Cleveland, Ohio

SEREVENT wrote:

pace51 wrote:

Reopened. Any requests for the next thread?
your request for a perm ban?

or to avoid my perm ban how about doing a tank maybe the challenger II
no no no no no no no that will just be a tank flame war like all the others.
Beduin
Compensation of Reactive Power in the grid
+510|6157|شمال
stfu and let the man post what ever he wants. More than half of you post shit anyways!
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6406|Vortex Ring State
B1B is NOT comparable to the Tu-160, get it right.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6936|Global Command

JohnG@lt wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I have no problem with anyone posting a genuine topic about a specific aircraft.
It's nothing but spam. If I cared, I would go to wikipedia myself.
Eggsactly.

He offers nothing that a person interested in couldn't find via google. 



But,








There isn't a much bigger drag on the site than those that bitch about other peoples threads, while making few hisself.


I could care less about the plane, but he did enough to post a thread about it, hence sharing something interesting to him. Your reply was more of a spam than the thread because you have nothing to say about the contents of the op.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard