North American Rockwell / Boeing B-1 Lancer

That model art is a good clue. Thanks.

In one of the screen captures flateric posted, you can just make out another pair of missiles on the pylons alongside the engines.
 
sferrin said:
Captureddd.PNG
Click to expand...
The model art most likely represents Agm-86.
Bhurki said:
Loadout for Agm 86B on B-1b prior to Salt2 -
Fwd - 2x(2)
Int - 2x(2) main station + 2x(1) abreast station
Aft - 2x(2)
Click to expand...
 
apparition13 said:
sferrin said:
Silencer1 said:
We could see something similar on the other shore of Atlaintic ocean (Pacific as well) - Russia restore production of Tu-160 Blackjacs after decades of launching the last (Soviet-time) example. I'm sure that's not an easy task, though...
Click to expand...

Difference is the line never went anywhere. It just collected dust. Big difference.
Click to expand...
I think that makes way more sense than destroying production lines. Keep the line, even if nothing is being produced (although ideally you should have some minimal production to keep the supply and spares lines intact), until a replacement is in production. That way if there is an emergency you can build something rather than having no options. Witness the C-17 and F-22 debacles, with lines destroyed and then - hey, we could use some more of those.
Click to expand...

It's not the production line that withers it's the supply chain. They have all of the tooling for the B-1B and the F-22. (don't know about the C-17).

In the B-1B case, they have had to build a new 47.5 ft long center longeron with that tooling; thankfully the boron/expoxy
material supplier was still in business and still producing the same material.

For the F-22, the workforce and supply chain that built it is now busy building other things
 
rooster said:
Forest Green said:
apparition13 said:
Those are the two station pylons. The two single pylons aren't attached.
Click to expand...
He's right, the B1-B is stated to have been capable of carrying 14 AGM-86Bs externally.
Click to expand...
There are smarter people than myself here but the bone never did because of aerodynamics
Click to expand...

Evidence? Aside from being forbidden by Treaty (which would be unnecessary if external carriage were impossible) I've never seen any such information. I also read somewhere that the AGM-129 was designed for supersonic EXTERNAL carriage, and the B-52 damn sure wouldn't be doing that. :D
 
The acoustics under the B-1B are -terrible- with high pressure vortices flows that curl up around the glove root and beat the skin with something like 170 decibels of constant thumping. Tore the AGM-86 to pieces. The AGM-129 was designed to handle the aeros environment but the drag on the jet became so bad that it could neither make range nor refuel at a safe height

The 1B would probably run out of fuel trying to dash supersonic with all that drag...
 
Last edited:
flateric said:
...
Click to expand...
Thanks for confirming. Its 14.

Also second row of graphics show how the bulkhead is moved forward to fit the hypersonic missiles (ALCM in the graphic)

So, a total of 10-12 ARRW could be mounted (6 external+ 4-6 internal (?))
Could it even fit on the existing AF rotary launcher, if yes, whats its weight limit?
images (32).jpeg
 
Last edited:
Bhurki said:
flateric said:
...
Click to expand...
Thanks for confirming. Its 14.

Also second row of graphics show how the bulkhead is moved forward to fit the hypersonic missiles (ALCM in the graphic)

So, a total of 10-12 ARRW could be mounted (6 external+ 4-6 internal (?))
Could it even fit on the existing AF rotary launcher, if yes, whats its weight limit?
View attachment 640902
Click to expand...

Forward bulkhead position, 8 AGM-186B at 3,150 lbs a piece comes to 25,200 lbs. My guess though is clearance will be the limiting factor, if GBU-31's already have clearance issues then the much larger ARRW will be worse.
 
rooster said:
The acoustics under the B-1B are -terrible- with high pressure vortices flows that curl up around the glove root and beat the skin with something like 170 decibels of constant thumping. Tore the AGM-86 to pieces. The AGM-129 was designed to handle the aeros environment but the drag on the jet became so bad that it could neither make range nor refuel at a safe height

The 1B would probably run out of fuel trying to dash supersonic with all that drag...
Click to expand...

Still waiting for a source.
 
sferrin said:
rooster said:
The acoustics under the B-1B are -terrible- with high pressure vortices flows that curl up around the glove root and beat the skin with something like 170 decibels of constant thumping. Tore the AGM-86 to pieces. The AGM-129 was designed to handle the aeros environment but the drag on the jet became so bad that it could neither make range nor refuel at a safe height

The 1B would probably run out of fuel trying to dash supersonic with all that drag...
Click to expand...

Still waiting for a source.
Click to expand...

Probably not going to get one. Everything forward of the nacelles was pretty benign, the flow aft of the nacelles was pretty challenging. If we had problems with a separation test on the Bone chances were it was an aft bay test. Got to see some pretty interesting video back in the day of aft bay tests...
 
mkellytx said:
sferrin said:
rooster said:
The acoustics under the B-1B are -terrible- with high pressure vortices flows that curl up around the glove root and beat the skin with something like 170 decibels of constant thumping. Tore the AGM-86 to pieces. The AGM-129 was designed to handle the aeros environment but the drag on the jet became so bad that it could neither make range nor refuel at a safe height

The 1B would probably run out of fuel trying to dash supersonic with all that drag...
Click to expand...

Still waiting for a source.
Click to expand...

Probably not going to get one. Everything forward of the nacelles was pretty benign, the flow aft of the nacelles was pretty challenging. If we had problems with a separation test on the Bone chances were it was an aft bay test. Got to see some pretty interesting video back in the day of aft bay tests...
Click to expand...

I could see air getting all jammed up with 6 abreast as well as the 2 nacelles. Maybe that's why they're sticking to in-line only, and going with bigger weapons. :confused:
 
sferrin said:
mkellytx said:
sferrin said:
rooster said:
The acoustics under the B-1B are -terrible- with high pressure vortices flows that curl up around the glove root and beat the skin with something like 170 decibels of constant thumping. Tore the AGM-86 to pieces. The AGM-129 was designed to handle the aeros environment but the drag on the jet became so bad that it could neither make range nor refuel at a safe height

The 1B would probably run out of fuel trying to dash supersonic with all that drag...
Click to expand...

Still waiting for a source.
Click to expand...

Probably not going to get one. Everything forward of the nacelles was pretty benign, the flow aft of the nacelles was pretty challenging. If we had problems with a separation test on the Bone chances were it was an aft bay test. Got to see some pretty interesting video back in the day of aft bay tests...
Click to expand...

I could see air getting all jammed up with 6 abreast as well as the 2 nacelles. Maybe that's why they're sticking to in-line only, and going with bigger weapons. :confused:
Click to expand...

We got the dirty air with nothing on the pylons. The test accel. to field Sniper paid a lot of attention to safe separation. The final mission, which I was the test conductor, was a GBU-31 out of the aft bay at .94M and 1,500 ft AGL. It came out clean and the rest is history. If everything were so easy...
 
sferrin said:
rooster said:
The acoustics under the B-1B are -terrible- with high pressure vortices flows that curl up around the glove root and beat the skin with something like 170 decibels of constant thumping. Tore the AGM-86 to pieces. The AGM-129 was designed to handle the aeros environment but the drag on the jet became so bad that it could neither make range nor refuel at a safe height

The 1B would probably run out of fuel trying to dash supersonic with all that drag...
Click to expand...

Still waiting for a source.
Click to expand...
sferrin, you wil find some information in this document. The rest is gleaned from memory in documents and interviews probably no longer found online.

 
rooster said:
sferrin said:
rooster said:
The acoustics under the B-1B are -terrible- with high pressure vortices flows that curl up around the glove root and beat the skin with something like 170 decibels of constant thumping. Tore the AGM-86 to pieces. The AGM-129 was designed to handle the aeros environment but the drag on the jet became so bad that it could neither make range nor refuel at a safe height

The 1B would probably run out of fuel trying to dash supersonic with all that drag...
Click to expand...

Still waiting for a source.
Click to expand...
sferrin, you wil find some information in this document. The rest is gleaned from memory in documents and interviews probably no longer found online.

Click to expand...

Good find Rooster, the info is on page 37. The high acoustics were high speed and low level 165 dB. Not surprisingly aft stations the worst, downstream of the tunnel right next to 4 exhaust nozzles.
 
rooster said:
sferrin said:
rooster said:
The acoustics under the B-1B are -terrible- with high pressure vortices flows that curl up around the glove root and beat the skin with something like 170 decibels of constant thumping. Tore the AGM-86 to pieces. The AGM-129 was designed to handle the aeros environment but the drag on the jet became so bad that it could neither make range nor refuel at a safe height

The 1B would probably run out of fuel trying to dash supersonic with all that drag...
Click to expand...

Still waiting for a source.
Click to expand...
sferrin, you wil find some information in this document. The rest is gleaned from memory in documents and interviews probably no longer found online.

Click to expand...
Thank you!
 
FighterJock said:
sferrin said:
aonestudio said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1306996253943672832
View: https://twitter.com/lfx160219/status/1306996253943672832
Click to expand...

Shouldn't this go on the fan art page?
Click to expand...

That is fast for a bomb drop, 41.2 seconds, especially for the bombs to be the Small Diameter Bombs. Another thing were they dropped onto separate targets?
Click to expand...

The time and being on separate targets isn't beyond belief. It's just that I think it might be fan art, It definitely isn't a real video.

 
sferrin said:
FighterJock said:
sferrin said:
aonestudio said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1306996253943672832
View: https://twitter.com/lfx160219/status/1306996253943672832
Click to expand...

Shouldn't this go on the fan art page?
Click to expand...

That is fast for a bomb drop, 41.2 seconds, especially for the bombs to be the Small Diameter Bombs. Another thing were they dropped onto separate targets?
Click to expand...

The time and being on separate targets isn't beyond belief. It's just that I think it might be fan art, It definitely isn't a real video.

Click to expand...

Taken in by fan art yet again. Damn it. Thanks sferrin. Got to be extra careful with those people doing fan art these day's.
 
Heavy bombers married to PGMs is just an awesome warfighter overmatch and a real strategic conventional deterrent.

US should continue to support a large robust bomber force of high-low super stealthy / bomb truck / arsenal plane force.
 
I know the B-1 has never used it's external hardpoints. But let's say there are used to carry B61s or AGM-86s. Would that block the internal bomb bays?
 
I think the external ordnance had to be released before the bomb bays had clearance.
 
I have a hard time believing anything could come out of the back two bomb bays in the configuration. Everything I've heard is that the turbulence between the nacelles gets really bad. I read once that the B-1 was limited to just sixteen Mk82 (500#) JDAMs and when I actually found a guy who claimed to be a B-1Nav named Calvin, he confirmed. I asked him about that; he said that to drop that size bomb they had to use the same rack as the CBU-87s (10x per bay) but that ordnance had separation issues - the front bay could carry the full ten, but the next one only four, and the back bay only two, for the total that I'd read of sixteen. I assume something about the aerodynamics or weight of TMDs allowed for the full number to be carried. But point being, that's rough air and I doubt lining the area around the bomb bays with draggy pylons and 3000lb missiles is going to smooth it out.

Academic I think, because no one is investing any time or money getting the externals operational (outside the SNIPER pod) on the small number of tired aircraft that are combat coded. B-1 is I think the first platform due to be replaced by B-21 now.
 
Josh_TN said:
Academic I think, because no one is investing any time or money getting the externals operational (outside the SNIPER pod) on the small number of tired aircraft that are combat coded. B-1 is I think the first platform due to be replaced by B-21 now.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's not true. Go to the previous page and the top of this one.
 
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
Academic I think, because no one is investing any time or money getting the externals operational (outside the SNIPER pod) on the small number of tired aircraft that are combat coded. B-1 is I think the first platform due to be replaced by B-21 now.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's not true. Go to the previous page and the top of this one.
Click to expand...
Not seeing anything that contradicts my post.
 
Josh_TN said:
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
Academic I think, because no one is investing any time or money getting the externals operational (outside the SNIPER pod) on the small number of tired aircraft that are combat coded. B-1 is I think the first platform due to be replaced by B-21 now.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's not true. Go to the previous page and the top of this one.
Click to expand...
Not seeing anything that contradicts my post.
Click to expand...
"You can lead a horse to water..."
 
You could skip the oblique references and spell it out. Or link to the item.
 
Josh_TN said:
I have a hard time believing anything could come out of the back two bomb bays in the configuration. Everything I've heard is that the turbulence between the nacelles gets really bad. I read once that the B-1 was limited to just sixteen Mk82 (500#) JDAMs and when I actually found a guy who claimed to be a B-1Nav named Calvin, he confirmed. I asked him about that; he said that to drop that size bomb they had to use the same rack as the CBU-87s (10x per bay) but that ordnance had separation issues - the front bay could carry the full ten, but the next one only four, and the back bay only two, for the total that I'd read of sixteen. I assume something about the aerodynamics or weight of TMDs allowed for the full number to be carried. But point being, that's rough air and I doubt lining the area around the bomb bays with draggy pylons and 3000lb missiles is going to smooth it out.

Academic I think, because no one is investing any time or money getting the externals operational (outside the SNIPER pod) on the small number of tired aircraft that are combat coded. B-1 is I think the first platform due to be replaced by B-21 now.
Click to expand...

Yes, Calvin from the old RAM days...Back in the day we were both at Dyess at the same time. When GBU-38 first arrived on the scene you are correct it could only be carried in the 10 bys since they were the only 1760 enabled bys with 14 inch lugs. Granted it's been over 15 years, so memory is faded, but fin clearance was the limiting issue for number of GBU-38's in a 10 by as they were intended for CBU's. I forget the total number carried but it was less than 10. The air was clean for the front two bays, but you are correct the rear bay couldn't drop GBU-38 at least up until 2008-9 when I finally left bombers. FWIW I've actually seen some of the GBU-38 separation videos, it isn't so much that the bomb separates unsafe, like a certain configuration on the BUFF where GBU-12 from the bay came back and hit the aircraft, but that it causes the weapon to be ineffective.

Well after I left, they added GBU-38 to the rotaries, two for every 30 inch lug. With the demise of CBU's not even sure if the 10 bys are still around these days. Don't get me started on the 28's...
 
Thanks for the info! I perhaps incorrectly remembered the GBU-38 discussion I had with Calvin; it was years ago. Wish him well if you are in contact; I met him on TankNet but haven't seen him there for a year or so.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom