Naive question: why is it carrying a jasm externally? Surrogate data?
Naive question: why is it carrying a jasm externally? Surrogate data?
Instrumented test rounds are already in inventory, AGM-158 is already an integrated store on the OAS, the Sniper pylon is already wired with all the connections to make everything talk, not to mention 5075 is a test birds so there's probably plenty of orange wire in that pylon. Finally, pretty sure the old ALCM dual pylons are long gone and most certainly not compatible with a -1760 interface.Naive question: why is it carrying a jasm externally? Surrogate data?
Instrumented test rounds are already in inventory, AGM-158 is already an integrated store on the OAS, the Sniper pylon is already wired with all the connections to make everything talk, not to mention 5075 is a test birds so there's probably plenty of orange wire in that pylon. Finally, pretty sure the old ALCM dual pylons are long gone and most certainly not compatible with a -1760 interface.Naive question: why is it carrying a jasm externally? Surrogate data?
Still need to build new pylons though.Instrumented test rounds are already in inventory, AGM-158 is already an integrated store on the OAS, the Sniper pylon is already wired with all the connections to make everything talk, not to mention 5075 is a test birds so there's probably plenty of orange wire in that pylon. Finally, pretty sure the old ALCM dual pylons are long gone and most certainly not compatible with a -1760 interface.Naive question: why is it carrying a jasm externally? Surrogate data?
The ALCMs were never carried externally on the B-1B due to the START-1 treaty with Russia in the early 1980s. Though the capability was there should the need arise, but it never was.
Well aware of this, back in 2004/2005 I escorted the Russian START inspection team on their inspection of Dyess. They verified the pylons were disabled by, "A process equivalent to welding," and that the bulkheads were in the center location in the forward bay.Instrumented test rounds are already in inventory, AGM-158 is already an integrated store on the OAS, the Sniper pylon is already wired with all the connections to make everything talk, not to mention 5075 is a test birds so there's probably plenty of orange wire in that pylon. Finally, pretty sure the old ALCM dual pylons are long gone and most certainly not compatible with a -1760 interface.Naive question: why is it carrying a jasm externally? Surrogate data?
The ALCMs were never carried externally on the B-1B due to the START-1 treaty with Russia in the early 1980s. Though the capability was there should the need arise, but it never was.
Exactly, I worked CONNECT in the 2005-8 timeframe and remember sending 0036 to Wichita for modification, but that was cockpit displays and data links. That said, you are also correct that -1760 in the bay was a proposal during that same timeframe. The Bone community was definitely better at lobbying and getting their upgrades, but my hunch is B-21's would be on the ramp at EL by the time any new pylon got there...It seems unlikely to me that the money can be found to refurbish the pylon capability. Look how long it took to get around to the CONNECT upgrade on the B-52s, and that I assume is a much easier process since it is an internal, centralized bay rather a half dozen different connections to the outside of the aircraft. I also wonder what the range and ceiling restrictions would be if you loaded two dozen AGM-158s on the inside and then started dragging down the airframe with external stores on top of that (presuming you only load external stores when the inside is full).
No worries because CONNECT was linked to SOJ, it's easy to get all those programs mixed up, the latter relied on the former to work. That was another case where the Bone got their data links before the BUFF got theirs...I thought the 1760 upgrade was part of CONNECT; my mistake.
Here's an - albeit low resolution - photo from the San Diego Air & Space Museum (SDASM) Archives of the Electro-Optical Viewing System (EVS) turret posted at Flickr.Never knew, that a prototype of the Rockwell B-1A Lancer had a retractable FLIR turret.
View: https://twitter.com/clemente3000/status/1352084159536226306?
Dear members or mods,
if this post is in the false topic, please let me know, so I can delete or move this post to a more suitable topic like the topic AMSA Program & B-1 Bomber projects.
Why they removed it for the sniper-XR though, such a shameHere's an - albeit low resolution - photo from the San Diego Air & Space Museum (SDASM) Archives of the Electro-Optical Viewing System (EVS) turret posted at Flickr.Never knew, that a prototype of the Rockwell B-1A Lancer had a retractable FLIR turret.
View: https://twitter.com/clemente3000/status/1352084159536226306?
Dear members or mods,
if this post is in the false topic, please let me know, so I can delete or move this post to a more suitable topic like the topic AMSA Program & B-1 Bomber projects.
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/4555988269/sizes/o/
Why they removed it for the sniper-XR though, such a shame
The B-1B was supposed to be a low cost interim bomber to be built relatively quickly, so they cut a lot of corners that they probably really shouldn't have. Regarding the decision to procure the Sniper-XR pod itself in the 2000s (not solely for the B-1 fleet it should be noted), from the late '80s up until around the late 2000s, podded sensor, Electronic Warfare, and other such systems for combat aircraft were popular, at least among the bean counters, because it was believed they would be less expensive to procure, and more economical to maintain in the long term, than having organic sensor, EW, etc. suites integrated into every front line aircraft. It was also thought that systems could be easily moved around between different aircraft, meaning only a few pods would need to be purchased overall (of course, the proponents of podded systems tended to forget about little things like combat attrition). Needless to say, things didn't quite work out the way they thought they would.
Quick question - why did they swap sides on the Sniper pylon mounting? (The Sniper & pylon were mounted on the left side of the fwd weapons bay on the test install on a/c 075 and on the right side on the production installation.)
They both do, I took photos of the big red buttons years ago.I think the B-2 was originally designed with same. I’d love to know if the it was retained, though since the B-1 was denuclearized I can’t imagine the capability was maintained.
I think the B-2 was originally designed with same. I’d love to know if the it was retained, though since the B-1 was denuclearized I can’t imagine the capability was maintained.
It was still there 16 years ago, but never used.Heh. I'd read about the self-darkening ports like. .. back in the 80s but hadn't seen anything about them since then. They're like the auto-darken welding hoods you can get. Speaking of long-forgotten details (to me) does the B-1B have the button on the back of the nose gear that the crew can hit on their way to the cockpit that starts all four engines?
I personally think we never got our money's worth on B-1B. If they'd sold the idea of a $150 million bomber in the 1980s on it becoming an amazing CAS platform for land-locked Afghanistan, I doubt it would have been approved. And it could never do the mission it was designed for.
I guess he thinks the only thing the B-1B has ever done in it's career is drop bombs on camels in Afghanistan.View: https://mobile.twitter.com/TheDEWLine/status/1365646837391237121
I personally think we never got our money's worth on B-1B. If they'd sold the idea of a $150 million bomber in the 1980s on it becoming an amazing CAS platform for land-locked Afghanistan, I doubt it would have been approved. And it could never do the mission it was designed for.
Now, now, they did pull some SIOP alert and spent a bunch more time broke on the ramp. Then Desert Fox and Kosovo, where it distinguished itself by letting a malfunctioning towed decoy chase one of them out of theater. All that said, useless dirt I, II, III... saved the airframe. When I showed up to Dyess in Summer 2002 the rest of the fleet was on the chopping block (this was after retiring 1/3 of the fleet). BLOS, JDAM, lack of access close to Iraq/Afghanistan and TST saved the Bone.I guess he thinks the only thing the B-1B has ever done in it's career is drop bombs on camels in Afghanistan.
And what did Russia give up to remove it's nuclear capability? How much damage could those weapons have caused? Sounds like a good investment to me.Now, now, they did pull some SIOP alert and spent a bunch more time broke on the ramp. Then Desert Fox and Kosovo, where it distinguished itself by letting a malfunctioning towed decoy chase one of them out of theater. All that said, useless dirt I, II, III... saved the airframe. When I showed up to Dyess in Summer 2002 the rest of the fleet was on the chopping block (this was after retiring 1/3 of the fleet). BLOS, JDAM, lack of access close to Iraq/Afghanistan and TST saved the Bone.I guess he thinks the only thing the B-1B has ever done in it's career is drop bombs on camels in Afghanistan.
That's a bit of a non sequitur as USAF was happy to give up that capability with START I in 1995. While they technically did IOC at the end of 1986 they never were a full up round (so to speak). Up until the early 90's the AFCS problems cut into the range, not to mention the DAS wasn't working right, 1990 engine fires grounded them, summer of 1990 SRAM's were pulled from alert aircraft, 1991 SRAM II was canceled, 1993 SRAM was permanently retired and the ALCM boxes were never purchased. START gave up SIOP in 1995, by that time all they could carry were B-61's and B-83's, the DAS still wasn't fixed, they were still hanger queens, seven years later the fighter boys in the five sided puzzle palace still were looking to get rid of them to buy more F-22's but CENTCOM/CC loved having a big stick that he could directly wield via BLOS through the CAOC. So, the fighter generals ground their teeth and murmured under their breath while the folks from DY/EL got regular vacations to the sandbox.And what did Russia give up to remove it's nuclear capability? How much damage could those weapons have caused? Sounds like a good investment to me.
Other than the fact it probably caused Russia to develop a similar aircraft that’s probably better. Not sure you’d call that a win.I believe anything that makes the other side spend more money than they need is a good investment, probably why the Chinese are so good at it.
Other than the fact it probably caused Russia to develop a similar aircraft that’s probably better. Not sure you’d call that a win.I believe anything that makes the other side spend more money than they need is a good investment, probably why the Chinese are so good at it.
I doubt their equivalents spend so much time in repair bays than in the air. No wonder the USAF can’t wait to be shot of it and would rather keep the far older but more reliable B-52.I didn't our side were the ones doing it. the Russians and the Chinese sure get value for money, especially when they get the rest to pay for the research too.
They look great design wise but everything I’ve read in the area says they are nightmare to keep in the air.I think it would be quite a stretch to describe the B-1 as a successful program. They ended up seeing a lot of use because of their endurance, but I don't think they ever ended up doing anything a B-52 couldn't. They had a fairly short amount of time serving as a deterrent force. They are stunningly beautiful aircraft though, with no shortage of range and payload. I've no doubt that they would have been effective low level penetration bombers (when a given airframe was combat capable), had they been used in that role, but it disappeared post cold war.